• 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

ENIC

Finney Is Back said:
We shouldn't add in anything for Porro or Kulu (other than their loan fees) until we actually make the signings. You can't pull the agreed fees for future signings in to the current window and choose to add it to our average spend when we haven't spent the money yet (after all you don't know what will happen in the summer - perhaps we'll sign nobody else and sell Harry Kane for £100m and have a surplus in that window for example (I don't think we will just saying that we could).

Surely also we would've had a surplus in 18/19 due to buying nobody and selling Dembele?
20m for Lamela is also a stretch and if we did value him that high then our purchase of Gill really was for a ridiculous fee!
Click to expand...
It’s plus 5m for that window. I’m missed it
And lamela value today is 14m… would that suit?
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Don’t win if you don’t score
He hasn’t brought anyone who can score
Really weird not to address that tiny issue
Click to expand...

Mate, if you feel like Joao Felix, Christopher Nkunku and (insert Chelsea buy here) aren't enough to score, nothing will ever be enough.

If we were struggling to score and went out and brought in Joao Felix, who had moved to Atletico as thr world's most coveted teenage forward for upwards of 125m just a couple of years ago, imo, you'd applaud it as a job well done. Same applies here.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Mate, if you feel like Joao Felix, Christopher Nkunku and (insert Chelsea buy here) aren't enough to score, nothing will ever be enough.

If we were struggling to score and went out and brought in Joao Felix, who had moved to Atletico as thr world's most coveted teenage forward for upwards of 125m just a couple of years ago, imo, you'd applaud it as a job well done. Same applies here.
Click to expand...
Felix… they don’t own him.. and he is 1 in 4 player. That’s an awful record if he is your main striker
nkkunku…they don’t own him and he isn’t even here and is injured
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Don’t win if you don’t score
He hasn’t brought anyone who can score
Really weird not to address that tiny issue
Click to expand...
its barca football scoring with midfielder-strikers. no need for pure hold up play strikers. all ballers like a giant 5-a-side.
we will see, I think chelsea will climb up the league table and fight us for fourth!
 
SpurMeUp said:
I'm glad your Dad did bring back that kit!

If you spend 45m in cash on jan 1st it isn't too hard to see how it becomes difficult to afford other signings. Ontop of the 45m you probably have 5m of fees etc as there could be with Danjuma too. Always better to stay liquid and agile, and pay later. The idea that you'd spend all the money upfront on Danjuma over having an option doesn't make sense does it? Far better to be able to send him back. Injury, attitude, ability, home sickness etc etc etc you never know.
Click to expand...

I'm glad too - for all the heartache this club gives me, it's been the one constant in my life through school, uni, unemployment, jobs, countries, partners and decades. And will always be - likewise with you all, since GG has been part of my Spurs life for about 12 years at this point. ;)

For Danjuma, loaning him in makes sense, because it's clear he wasn't our first choice. We were in for Zaniolo on loan, we were in for Deulofeu (as per Romano), we were in for a bloke called Terrier (again, as per Romano), but Zaniolo was too expensive and Terrier/Deulofeu both got injured this January, so we had to switch focus.

Porro, though - it's clear we aren' t going to send him back if he doesn't work out, and Paratici apparently admitted we tried for him in the summer but it didn't work. So it's there that it strikes me as negligent that we waited so long.

And while you may be right on extra fees, etc, I find it hard to believe we would have been stretched to accommodate those with the 50m in liquidity we had heading into the window. As it stands, the club made a tradeoff - zero points from Villa, City and Arsenal in exchange for keeping more of that 50m intact. It only pays off if we achieve our objectives and spend that money in the summer. Are you confident we will do either?
 
DubaiSpur said:
I'm glad too - for all the heartache this club gives me, it's been the one constant in my life through school, uni, unemployment, jobs, countries, partners and decades. And will always be - likewise with you all, since GG has been part of my Spurs life for about 12 years at this point. ;)

For Danjuma, loaning him in makes sense, because it's clear he wasn't our first choice. We were in for Zaniolo on loan, we were in for Deulofeu (as per Romano), we were in for a bloke called Terrier (again, as per Romano), but Zaniolo was too expensive and Terrier/Deulofeu both got injured this January, so we had to switch focus.

Porro, though - it's clear we aren' t going to send him back if he doesn't work out, and Paratici apparently admitted we tried for him in the summer but it didn't work. So it's there that it strikes me as negligent that we waited so long.

And while you may be right on extra fees, etc, I find it hard to believe we would have been stretched to accommodate those with the 50m in liquidity we had heading into the window. As it stands, the club made a tradeoff - zero points from Villa, City and Arsenal in exchange for keeping more of that 50m intact. It only pays off if we achieve our objectives and spend that money in the summer. Are you confident we will do either?
Click to expand...

In your crystal ball, does it say that spening the extra cash on day 1 would have seen us get more points? Or more likely it would not have made a difference? You can look at this conversly and say losing liquidity would have lost us Danjuma or the next signing, someone who will win points. All speculation on one side. In the other, money is money, it is simple and easy to measure.
 
Last edited:
DubaiSpur said:
I'm glad too - for all the heartache this club gives me, it's been the one constant in my life through school, uni, unemployment, jobs, countries, partners and decades. And will always be - likewise with you all, since GG has been part of my Spurs life for about 12 years at this point. ;)

For Danjuma, loaning him in makes sense, because it's clear he wasn't our first choice. We were in for Zaniolo on loan, we were in for Deulofeu (as per Romano), we were in for a bloke called Terrier (again, as per Romano), but Zaniolo was too expensive and Terrier/Deulofeu both got injured this January, so we had to switch focus.

Porro, though - it's clear we aren' t going to send him back if he doesn't work out, and Paratici apparently admitted we tried for him in the summer but it didn't work. So it's there that it strikes me as negligent that we waited so long.

And while you may be right on extra fees, etc, I find it hard to believe we would have been stretched to accommodate those with the 50m in liquidity we had heading into the window. As it stands, the club made a tradeoff - zero points from Villa, City and Arsenal in exchange for keeping more of that 50m intact. It only pays off if we achieve our objectives and spend that money in the summer. Are you confident we will do either?
Click to expand...

Negligent. You ever thought we didn't have the cash to pay his release fee in one go? Or that they might want to keep him for the cup final the only trophy they had a realistic chance of winning this season?
 
Tranfrnrkt data
After the ground
22/23 139.15 net does not include agreed commitments such as Kulu and Porro
21/22 61.28 net (does allow for lamelas fee either currently valued at 14m)
20/21 97.2 net
19/20 84 net

Before the ground
18/19 +5m
17/18 19.7 net
16/17 31.2 net

Total 428
Before the ground average 15.3
After the ground 95m plus lamela, Aurier and Doherty write offs ..

Arsenals average over the post ground period is 119M.
Liverpools is 36.7m….
United is 139.8M
Chelsea 153.7…. Including the recent 543.6M
City 58.4m

So the two top teams over that period City and Pool, closely followed by Chelsea have sold well (we are horrendous at the like arsenal and united) which off sets so many issues. If we can shift the brick… the spending becomes easier
 
metalgear said:
its barca football scoring with midfielder-strikers. no need for pure hold up play strikers. all ballers like a giant 5-a-side.
we will see, I think chelsea will climb up the league table and fight us for fourth!
Click to expand...
Really… how do they play all the wingers at the same time
 
Bedfordspurs said:
The point per pound model
I’d argue when you look at the soend I posted earlier it’s to do with the team that sells best
Click to expand...

Chelsea hoovered up the best youth in europe and sold at a profit in order to get around ffp. I've said before that needs to be cracked down on.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Porro could have been ours on Jan 1st if we had an actual net spend, mate. It was a 'difficult deal to do' because it involved spending money up front, and we tried everything humanly possible to avoid that, allowing Sporting to have their way.

Spend 40m on Jan 1st, he's here, maybe we get a few points out of Villa, City and Arsenal instead of zero.

We finished with a net spend of 5m - you can count Porro as a signing early if you wish, but it isn't a fact, more an opinion. Fact is he's on loan until the summer, and the loan fee was roughly the same we paid for Danjuma, 2.5m. For a grand total of 5m.

Not significant in the least, is my core point.
Click to expand...

I'm aware it's an opinion. That's why I didn't state it as fact.

I don't see why it matters much when we pay the money, we signed the player, he's here, will play for us. He's signed a 5 and a half year contract. It's all in our hands if we want to keep him around. There's literally no downside compared to signing him outright.

So I consider that a commitment to spending that money, count it as part of the transfers this window. I see this as a positive move.

Astonishing how despite having a "not significant in the least" net spend and without selling anyone we managed to end up with Pedro Porro on a long term contract. Almost as if using the term net spend in this way doesn't give a good description of our actual business this window, even if (arguably) factual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back