Other Games - 2010/11 Season

[VillaAlways]

Even when Spuds were 4-0 down, it was still them bastards that were playing Inter in the Champions League and not us. Take the piss all you want, that fucking should have been us.

We'd have gone out to Young Boys

[VillaZogmariner]

Even when Spuds were 4-0 down, it was still them bastards that were playing Inter in the Champions League and not us. Take the piss all you want, that fucking should have been us.

Unfortunately Randy hasn't been able to spend as much on our squad as Spurs have on theirs. It's an unavoidable fact of modern football that you get what you pay for and their squad cost about twice as much as ours.

I thought somebody had been through this myth and proved that "net spend" since Randy took over, we've spent more than Spurs?

It's not a myth when you look at squad value, Redknapp has a larger and more expensive squad of players to choose from than Houllier has. Net spend is useful for accountants, the players that he has on the pitch are more important for a manager.

Maybe so, but it does show that your argument about Randy not havin gthe money to spend what Spurs' owners have had to spend is wrong.

[Dave]

Even when Spuds were 4-0 down, it was still them bastards that were playing Inter in the Champions League and not us. Take the piss all you want, that fucking should have been us.

Unfortunately Randy hasn't been able to spend as much on our squad as Spurs have on theirs. It's an unavoidable fact of modern football that you get what you pay for and their squad cost about twice as much as ours.

I thought somebody had been through this myth and proved that "net spend" since Randy took over, we've spent more than Spurs?

It's not a myth when you look at squad value, Redknapp has a larger and more expensive squad of players to choose from than Houllier has. Net spend is useful for accountants, the players that he has on the pitch are more important for a manager.

Maybe so, but it does show that your argument about Randy not havin gthe money to spend what Spurs' owners have had to spend is wrong.

Not really. Enic have owned Spurs since 2001. If since 2001 Enic have spent £200m (which I'm not saying that they have done) and Randy has spent £100m since 2006, then Randy hasn't spent what Enic have.

[pauliewalnuts]

In your example, Dave, would you not have to factor in the fact that players signed in 2001 will almost certainly be retired or getting there by now?

[Villa'Zawg]

According to their annual accounts reports, Spurs spent £262.4m on player transfers between summer 2006/2007 and the start of last season.

Since then they've bought Kaboul, Van der Vaart and Sandro.

Risso suggested that £262.4m might not be right but didn't elaborate.

[Dave]

In your example, Dave, would you not have to factor in the fact that players signed in 2001 will almost certainly be retired or getting there by now?

You would. But that doesn't allow for the fact that a football club is a constantly evolving thing.

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.

And frankly I'm disgusted in myself for allowing me to get into the never-ending comparison of us and Spurs.

[Stu]

Other than that, the Napoli - Liverpool game is a bag of wank.

[bob]

Anyone seen David Platt's crazy tactical sheets he jabs away at when Man City are making a substitution?

David Pleat last week and Graham Taylor  tonght have both scoffed at the detailed diagrams being thrust in front of the substitute as he is waiting on the line. GT joked that Platt couldn't even read and write when he was at the Villa.

David Platt - tactical mastermind.

[N'ZMAV]

Might have a couple of quid on Harewood to score at the sty.

[TopDeck113]

GT joked that Platt couldn't even read and write when he was at the Villa.

I, too, laughed at that. 

Then had a bitter thought, that the only thing Platt did whilst at Villa to improve his command of language was to have Italian lessons.

[spangley1812]

Spurs 0 - 1 Everton...........Baines, great free-kick

[PaulWinch again]

1-1 Howard howler

[spangley1812]

Spurs 1 - 1 Everton......Van Der Vaart, tap in after shocking mistake by Howard

[Axl Rose]

1215: Tottenham v Everton scene-setter:

Chris Whyatt reports: "Are Spurs fast becoming the most watchable Premier League team out there? It feels that way with swashbuckling Gareth Bale and his merry musketeers, who managed to score three goals at the home of the European champions on Wednesday and still lose, in fine fettle.


come on Everton!!!!!

[hilts_coolerking]

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.