Tottenham Hotspur Thread

Zinedine Kilbane 110 wrote: I dont disagree with anything you said, the first XI is really strong..... but you can always improve.

No doubt there are players who would improve our first XI. But they're already playing for Chelsea, City, PSG, Barca, Real and Bayern i.e. out of our League.

Zinedine Kilbane 110 wrote: Ideally a top striker - somebody better than Joshua king. Might sounds crazy but Lukaku was somebody we should have been chasing. With 2 out and out strikers we have more flexibility to change our formation. Too many draws in the last 2 campaigns have cost us.

Doesn't "sound" crazy, it is crazy.

For even if Poch were to play two strikers every game - and he won't - that still wouldn't satisfy Lukaku, since players like him demand to be the "Main Man" at whatever club they're at. And that ain't ever going to happen while Harry is at Spurs.

As for lesser strikers who are still better than eg King. I can't see any of them coming to Spurs and being content to sit on the bench while HK starts 35 games a season (minimum). In fact, you'd have to question the attitude of any who would.

And even if you got past that, do you honestly think Levy would pay £30m+ for a player who doesn't actually play, with wages to match?

Not a hope.

The best we'll get is another Vinny Janssen, only one who" does what it says on the tin" this time.

Zinedine Kilbane 110 wrote: It depends on the level spurs are aiming at. Do they want to challenge for the league title or is top 4 the aim. Didnt Lamela cost £30M (or close to it) and he doesnt make the first XI. Nothing wrong with that, same with all the top teams.

If I were Joe Lewis, I'd have been spending "Man City Money" on Spurs for as long as they have. But I'm not and he isn't.

From memory, Spurs' three biggest signings have been £26m (Soldado), £29m (Lamela) and £30m (Sissoko) and none has worked out.

For that reason alone, Lewis/Levy are likely to be cautious. More to the point, if they were to splash out, say, £40m on a big name player, he would undoubtedly command similarly high wages. So that even if Spurs were prepared to pay him, ALL the other first team players would be lining up for a similar deal, sending morale right down the crapper when the club doesn't/can't accede.

And all that's before we get to the little matter of an £800m stadium to fund.

Fact is, the team is improving measuarably each season under Poch, and with such a young team (only Hugo over 30?), there's no reason why it cannot continue to improve.

Of course, whether it can improve enough to win the League next season (or season after) is still debateable.

But whether we do or we don't, it won't be by going on a spending spree like the other big clubs, that's for sure.

Bob Hoskins wrote: Pochettino is like Kloop in that he seems very canny in the type of player he wants, whereas Man United, City and Chlesea are happy enough to buy the best and just let the manager sort it out.  The luxury of having looadzamoney

Interesting where the looadzamoney comes from.

For both Chelsea and Man City, the money ultimately came from ultra-corrupt, energy-rich sh*tholes, where who you knew rather than what you knew was the key to acquiring your share. And whilst I'm not saying that Abram and the Abu Dhabis are stupid, maybe that accounts for their willingness just to throw money at a problem?

Whereas with the Glazers and Joe Lewis, regardless of what corners they may have cut at times, they had to earn their wealth the hard way.

Which may explain why the Glazers didn't actually give serious money to Ferguson, Moyes, even Van Gaal, but resisted spending until they were obviously in the sh*t, and needed Mourinho to bale them out.

Ditto Spurs, where Lewis/Levy have run a very tight ship, even though eg Lewis could pay for the entire cost of the £800m stadium from his own resources were he prepared to.

Roberto Baggio wrote: United had the most expensively assembled squad in footballing history in the 2016/17 season Are you saying that this was solely down to Mourinho's July 2016 purchases? As his 3 predecessors never actually ever had serious money to spend?

My mistake - I thought Van Gaal's big signings were mostly in his second season, but seems not.

Nonetheless, I think my point stands in that if you look closely, the Glazers only ever gave Ferguson serious money after they'd had a bad season. And in his final season at OT, Ferguson won the EPL with arguably the "worst" group of players ever to lift the trophy (an astonishing feat of stewardship). In other words, he obviously reckoned he could still go out on a high, and not have to demand money to rebuild the squad for his successor.

Speaking of whom, Moyes was always more of a "Poundland" appointment than eg "Designer Label" Mourinho.

I mean, Moyes big signing was Fellaini lol, whereas Van Gaal's was Di Maria and Mourinho's Pogba.

And even if MU outspent rivals in absolute terms, that has to be seen relatively i.e. long the richest club in the world.   

Edited by Territorial - 18 Jul 2017 at 3:07pm

Roberto Baggio wrote: Moyes's big signing was Mata Your mistake again

Not really. Fellaini was Moyes first "big" signing, having just crept in on deadline day - some "statement of intent" that.

And while Mata might have cost more, he only came in January (panic buy), from a Championship rival who were quite happy to let him go - what does that say about him?

Of course he's not a bad player, but be honest, he's hardly a top drawer, big name signing in the manner of Pogba or Lukaku.

Roberto Baggio wrote: Well that's the manager's mistake then. At the time 70 odd million on two players was a lot of dough, and it dispels your original point IMO that the Glazers never gave Moyes, Ferguson or Van Gaal serious money to spend.

My point was not that the Glazers never give serious, record-busting money to their managers, but that they only do so when the team is obviously slipping and they need to protect their investment.

And the most obvious example was the appointment of Moyes. With the team having just won the title (though fcuk-knows-how), they obviously felt that it was in good shape and that Moyes could carry on as he had done at Everton (i.e. careful husbandry of the money), only at a higher level.

Bob Hoskins wrote: Moyes was 4th or so choice. Gaurdiola, Klopp and Ancellotti were all ahead of him

And why didn't they get them?

A reluctance to go the extra mile for their wage and transfer kitty demands?

I mean, if City could attract Guardiola, Liverpool Klopp and Chelsea/PSG Ancelotti, then surely Man U could have?

Just thinking that particularly a decent back up striker.

Maybe Levy is doing a bit of business on the qt.

Roberto Baggio wrote: Some outburst by Danny Rose in today's papers.   Too late Danny, City have already bought a left back, you can stop pleading for them to come and sign you too!