Other Games - 2010/11 Season

[Chris Smith]

If the players signed earlier bring in a load of money (such as the £15m of so they got for Postiga, Carr, Davies and Kanouté) and that allows you to bring in Berbatov, Carrick and Dawson for the same amount, one of whom you make a £16m profit on, one you make a £20m profit on and the other you get half a decade of good service from. That then gives you a base on which to build and also allows for reinvestment in players such as Van Der Vaart, Defoe, Modric etc.

I think it stands to reason that if Spurs have five additional years of sensible ownership and squad development than we do then you'd expect them to be in a better position now.

Perhaps, but the key word there is "sensible".  The amount spent is irrelevant if it is spent poorly.  Or if you have a limited manager.

Even if you believe that Spurs have massively outspent us, which I don't, that in itself is no reason why they should finish above us.  Otherwise the table would correspond absolutely to money spent, which it doesn't.

They may or may not be five years ahead of us but for how long will that be a factor?  After 10 years, 20 years or 100 years they will still be 5 years ahead of us in terms of when their rebuild started.  At some point we have to be able to say "We've spent X amount over Y years and that should be enough to allow us to compete."  We can't go on saying "Spurs are 5 years ahead of us" ad nauseam.

You might not believe that they've outspent us but your faith is misplaced as it is a verifiable fact.

If they continue to spend more than us then it will be very difficult (not impossible) for us ever to catch them.

[hilts_coolerking]

You might not believe that they've outspent us but your faith is misplaced as it is a verifiable fact.

If they continue to spend more than us then it will be very difficult (not impossible) for us ever to catch them.

I said "massively outspent us", which I don't believe they have.  They have spent a lot of money, so have we.  The reason they have a better squad than us is because, on the whole, they have spent their money on better players.  And they have tended to use them, something which we have only very recently started to match.

[Villa'Zawg]

You might not believe that they've outspent us but your faith is misplaced as it is a verifiable fact.

If they continue to spend more than us then it will be very difficult (not impossible) for us ever to catch them.

I said "massively outspent us", which I don't believe they have.  They have spent a lot of money, so have we.  The reason they have a better squad than us is because, on the whole, they have spent their money on better players.  And they have tended to use them, something which we have only very recently started to match.

They've spent about double what we have spent, both gross and nett, since Randy took over. I think that does equate to "massively outspent us"

[hilts_coolerking]

They've spent about double what we have spent, both gross and nett, since Randy took over. I think that does equate to "massively outspent us"

Their net spend from 06/07 - 09/10, i.e. the seasons O'Neill was here - was less than ours.  Plus they spend less on player salaries than we do.  Therefore they have not massively outspent us.

[Villa'Zawg]

They've spent about double what we have spent, both gross and nett, since Randy took over. I think that does equate to "massively outspent us"

Their net spend from 06/07 - 09/10, i.e. the seasons O'Neill was here - was less than ours.  Plus they spend less on player salaries than we do.  Therefore they have not massively outspent us.

How did you work that out?

[hilts_coolerking]

How did you work that out?

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/aston-villa-transfers.html

[Villa'Zawg]

How did you work that out?

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/aston-villa-transfers.html

The transfer spend figures for Spurs are more than £50m less than they reported in their annual accounts.

[hilts_coolerking]

The transfer spend figures for Spurs are more than £50m less than they reported in their annual accounts.

Are you referring to the Spurs accounts which you have been calling into question?  Or have you now accepted they spend more on player salaries than we do?

[Villa'Zawg]

The transfer spend figures for Spurs are more than £50m less than they reported in their annual accounts.

Are you referring to the Spurs accounts which you have been calling into question?  Or have you now accepted they spend more on player salaries than we do?

The amounts they spend on transfers are acounted for in a clear and transparant way. there is no need to interpret them as there is with wage costs. They have spent over £50m more than the figures on the link you posted.

[damon loves JT]

bloody hell, this is like `Pigs in Space'

[hilts_coolerking]

The amounts they spend on transfers are acounted for in a clear and transparant way. there is no need to interpret them as there is with wage costs. They have spent over £50m more than the figures on the link you posted.

Right.  So the figures that support your argument are fine, while those that don't need to be "interpreted".  What a surprise.

[hilts_coolerking]

bloody hell, this is like `Pigs in Space'

Your piece on the Cat Lady the other day was a belter.  "Now we will probably never know how the cat felt about it."

[Villa'Zawg]

The amounts they spend on transfers are acounted for in a clear and transparant way. there is no need to interpret them as there is with wage costs. They have spent over £50m more than the figures on the link you posted.

Right.  So the figures that support your argument are fine, while those that don't need to be "interpreted".  What a surprise.

I'm sorry if it's a bit too difficult for you to comprehend but yes, that's exactly the case. The figures for transfer spend are clear and transparent, the figures for wage costs are not. There's nothing dodgy about it, it's just the way these things work.

[hilts_coolerking]

I'm sorry if it's a bit too difficult for you to comprehend but yes, that's exactly the case. The figures for transfer spend are clear and transparent, the figures for wage costs are not. There's nothing dodgy about it, it's just the way these things work.

The only clear and transparent thing about this whole sorry discussion is your agenda.  Spurs have not massively outspent us.  They have invested a lot in their team and so have we, marginally more in net terms.  They spend a lot on player salaries and so do we, again marginally more.

[Dave]

I'm sorry if it's a bit too difficult for you to comprehend but yes, that's exactly the case. The figures for transfer spend are clear and transparent, the figures for wage costs are not. There's nothing dodgy about it, it's just the way these things work.

The only clear and transparent thing about this whole sorry discussion is your agenda.  Spurs have not massively outspent us.  They have invested a lot in their team and so have we, marginally more in net terms.  They spend a lot on player salaries and so do we, again marginally more.

Yet they have been doing that spending 2001 and building their squad accordingly, we have been doing it since 2006.

We also have a higher net spend since 2006 then Arsenal or Man Utd have, are they doing better JUST because Wenger and Ferguson are better managers than O'Neill or is the fact that they had much better resources to work with before then a factor as well?