Other Games - 2010/11 Season

[hilts_coolerking]

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?

So given Spurs are supposedly 5 years ahead in their development, how is it we finished 14 points in front of them in 07/08 and 11 points ahead in 08/09?  This idea that they're years ahead of us and destined to be so for the foreseeable future just doesn't stand up.

[Chris Smith]

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.

The have invested a lot more than us. Their squad cost a lot more than ours. Redknapp has a more expensive group of players to choose from. How many different ways does it need to be said before you get it?

[Dave]

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?

So given Spurs are supposedly 5 years ahead in their development, how is it we finished 14 points in front of them in 07/08 and 11 points ahead in 08/09?  This idea that they're years ahead of us and destined to be so for the foreseeable future just doesn't stand up.

So presumably if Blackpool and West Brom finish ahead of Liverpool this season then that means that they have more valuable squads, better players and are in a better position to push on to Champions League qualification than Liverpool are next season?

Or is just possible that life isn't quite as black and white and clubs will occasionally go through crises that can be rectified by sensible decision making?

[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.

The have invested a lot more than us. Their squad cost a lot more than ours. Redknapp has a more expensive group of players to choose from. How many different ways does it need to be said before you get it?

I understand what you believe to be the case but you're wrong about it, that's all.  We invested c. £80M on players while O'Neill was here and Spurs invested about the same, marginally less.  The same is basically true of the amount spent on salaries.

The difference is that they invested their money in better players, used them better and eventually appointed a manager who could get good performances out of them consistently.  Whereas we bought inferior players for the most part, used only some of those we did buy, and ultimately had a manager who reached the limit of his ability in getting good performances out of them.  How long is it going to take before you get that?

[Villa'Zawg]

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.

You are a funny fucker, are you stamping your feet as you type? Even the website you pointed to earlier, which we know for a fact undervalues their spend by more than £50m, shows Spurs having spent 50% more than us in net terms since Randy took over.

It's printed in their official accounts that they've spent over £260m since summer 2006 plus whatever they spent this summer but for some strange reason you seem to feel that all you have to do is keep denying it and you'll end up being right. That's funny weird.

[hilts_coolerking]

Or is just possible that life isn't quite as black and white and clubs will occasionally go through crises that can be rectified by sensible decision making?

The only people putting forward a black and white case are those that think Spurs must and will finish ahead of us simply because they started their rebuilding 5 years before us.  The fact that they finished behind us in the seasons I mentioned proves that to be the case.

[Olneythelonely]

Can we talk about Spurs a bit more? It never gets boring.

[Dave]

Or is just possible that life isn't quite as black and white and clubs will occasionally go through crises that can be rectified by sensible decision making?

The only people putting forward a black and white case are those that think Spurs must and will finish ahead of us simply because they started their rebuilding 5 years before us.  The fact that they finished behind us in the seasons I mentioned proves that to be the case.

And the example I gave that you decided to ignore demonstrates that a bad season for any club doesn't automatically render irrelevant the positive things that have gone before.

I've not said that Spurs either will or must finish above us for any reason. But I have given some fairly cogent arguments as to why they might without it all being down to our own incompetence.

[Villa'Zawg]

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?

So given Spurs are supposedly 5 years ahead in their development, how is it we finished 14 points in front of them in 07/08 and 11 points ahead in 08/09?  This idea that they're years ahead of us and destined to be so for the foreseeable future just doesn't stand up.

2009 accounts

During the financial year the following players joined the Club:
Luka Modric, Giovani Dos Santos, Heurelho Gomes, David Bentley,
Vedran Corluka, Cesar Sanchez, Roman Pavlyuchenko, Wilson
Palacios, Carlo Cudicini, John Bostock, Paul-Jose M’Poku Ebunge
and Mirko Ranieri whilst Jermain Defoe, Pascal Chimbonda and
Robbie Keane all re-signed. The total cost of
all of these players was £119.3m.

Additions 119,336

“Since the year end we have boosted our squad with the following
signings: Peter Crouch, Sebastien Bassong, Niko Kranjcar, Kyle
Naughton, Kyle Walker and James Walker at a cost of £29.4m.”

It stands up because they went out and spent another £148,736,000 on new players.

[hilts_coolerking]

You are a funny fucker, are you stamping your feet as you type? Even the website you pointed to earlier, which we know for a fact undervalues their spend by more than £50m, shows Spurs having spent 50% more than us in net terms since Randy took over.

If I'm a funny fucker you must be a stupid fucker.

The figures show that for the four seasons O'Neill was here our net spend was £82.3M.  They also show that Spurs' net spend over the same period was £77.7M

Villa
06/07 £14.1M
07/08 £6.25M
08/09 £45.9M
09/10 £16.05M

Spurs
06/07 £23.8M
07/08 £33.95M
08/09 £19.45M
09/10 £00.5M

[Dave]

If I'm a funny fucker you must be a stupid fucker.

[mod hat] Can both of you cut out the childish name calling please?[/mod hat]

Now we can go back to the childish throwing figures around.

[hilts_coolerking]

And the example I gave that you decided to ignore demonstrates that a bad season for any club doesn't automatically render irrelevant the positive things that have gone before.

I've not said that Spurs either will or must finish above us for any reason. But I have given some fairly cogent arguments as to why they might without it all being down to our own incompetence.

I'm not sure why my position is regarded by some as so controversial.  We've spent a lot of money, as have Spurs.  We spend a lot on salaries, so do Spurs.  We finished well above them for two seasons before they caught us up by appointing a superior manager.  The progress they have made under him has surpassed our own rate of progress, despite us having a period of stability, high spending and no boardroom interference.  The result of their progress means they are now able to attract a better class of player than we can, which is why they got Van der Vaart for £8M and we got Ireland for the same price.

However, I don't think they are predestined to finish above us because of the players they bought in 2001.  They'll probably finish above us because of the players they've bought much more recently, and because they have a very good manager.

[TheSandman]

[The Situation]

I'd rather talk about what a pathetic excuse of a footballer Peter Crouch is. He's 6'7 and goes down quicker than Paris Hilton's knickers. The amount of times he goes down for a player of his size is almost turning into a running joke, he's been getting tips of Darko Milicic fo' sho'; and to think people say Ashley Young is a diver...

Well done to whichever ref was officiating today's spurs vs Everton match... just told Crouch to get up you lanky piece of shit.

[Dave]

And the example I gave that you decided to ignore demonstrates that a bad season for any club doesn't automatically render irrelevant the positive things that have gone before.

I've not said that Spurs either will or must finish above us for any reason. But I have given some fairly cogent arguments as to why they might without it all being down to our own incompetence.

I'm not sure why my position is regarded by some as so controversial.  We've spent a lot of money, as have Spurs.  We spend a lot on salaries, so do Spurs.  We finished well above them for two seasons before they caught us up by appointing a superior manager.  The progress they have made under him has surpassed our own rate of progress, despite us having a period of stability, high spending and no boardroom interference.  The result of their progress means they are now able to attract a better class of player than we can, which is why they got Van der Vaart for £8M and we got Ireland for the same price.

However, I don't think they are predestined to finish above us because of the players they bought in 2001.  They'll probably finish above us because of the players they've bought much more recently, and because they have a very good manager.

Nice and waffly, and not at all controversial. But nor is that fact that in the years 2001-2006 when they were in a position to bring in the likes of Berbatov, Davids, Lennon, Huddlestone, Carrick, Dawson, Defoe and Keane we were bringing in Mathieu Berson, Kevin Phillips and Aaron Hughes.

The fact that that they had two dodgy seasons doesn't mean that they didn't have valuable players or the proceeds from the sale of valuable players that we didn't. I'm not looking for someone to blame for that, it's just a benefit that they had over us. Good luck to them.