Happy Face

I'd hate to be a poor sod who just wants to go in quietly and get a new pair of buds or summat today. End up on ITN at 5pm with the whole country saying what a prick you are.

Glad to hear it. I'm ebullient myself. Week of covering for the boss coming to an end, weekend with a home game coming up. Choss!

I had to eat my bagel with a knife and fork it was so drenched in pickle sauce. Felt like Mr Pitt on Seinfeld. Tomorrow the whole office will be eating sarnies with cutlery. Also booked a viewing of Woodhill Hall for next week, currently first choice for a wedding venue from a cursory web search. Anyone been?

And again today. My regularity gives me a deep sense of pride.

'Apple and Blackberry Crumble.' -Ian Hyland

http://www.theonion.com/articles/apple-user-acting-like-his-dad-just-died,26270/

Got it the wrong way round, but I've always loved Battles and they're all over the shop now.... http://fliiby.com/file/429146/stizwl6ggl.html

Had a good shit just after I got to work.

I'm not rejecting the analogy at all. I'm rejecting TP's claim (and it was his) that we are doing EVERYTHING Spurs do. I'm happy to appreciate any similarities in approach, but my initial point (which TP used Spurs to counter) was about players on the pitch. We're bringing in new players every 2 years for just about every position on the park. Understandable during transitions between leagues, but thinking of next steps, either we're going to have to start retaining players longer....or spend bigger on their replacements. EDIT: And by "EVERYTHING", I mean only the 5 things I listed: 1. low wage cap - Not sure what Spurs cap is, but happy to accept if they have one similar to ours It is evdiently "no single player shall earn mroe tha £80K per week", Modric is currently on £40K (as per press reports - Daily Mirror article on Modric's twisting) 2. low transfer fees - Spurs first 11 was built at a cost of more than twice ours. They spend what they can afford nothing more, they are considerably richer than us just now. They made £68 Million in prfots whilst we were losing tens of millions. 3. selling at profit - All clubs want to do that. Agreed, although as a policy we didn't. 4. retaining our best young players - Spurs manage this better than us at the moment See no 2, we haven't been truly tested yet (and I would STILL have taken £35 Mill for Carroll) 5. finishing in the top ten - Ashley yet to manage this. Spurs doing it year on year at the moment. From a self sustaining base These are fundamentally opposed. Spurs couldn't maintain 5 if they stuck with 2. Going round in circles. Spurs spend what they can afford...so do West Brom. That similarity has no relevance on league position. We can spend what we can afford for another decade without improving our position. When you brought up a comparison with Spurs spending within their means, it was to sugest that a team can reach their position by spending within their means. But the difference is £70m+ is currently within their means, and less than £30m is (apparently) within our means. 3 years ago Spurs finished 11th and we were 12th. They pushed on to the Champions League, we got releagted They moved forward with clever investment so now they can afford the team they're maintaining, we sank without trace. Last season we finished 12th again, and we have the opportunity to do now what they did over the last 3 years, like i said though, it needs investment on the pitch. That said...Spurs reported a loss last year. Of course it does, but "within their/our means" does not preclude that, their years of profit generation have assisted their spending now. Assisted, but not covered, Gone from £24m in the black to £79m in the red, even with their profits. A £103m switch in circumstances. The important difference is their borrowing hasn't exceeded their assets as yet. The trend is certainly in that direction. Shepherd was only just coming to that little problem himself when Ashley came along.

When the second most sobering voice on Toontastic says this, it means we should all go in theyah finkin we should cahm aaht wiv free points. Hadn't read the thread, but your post is spot on, over the last 18 year we've took 34 points and they've managed 13.

Reckon we'll murder em.

The only guarantee I need.

The Spurs approach sounds a lot like the Shepherd/Hall approach tbh... http://swissramble.blogspot.com/search/label/Tottenham%20Hotspur

HP Photosmart Premium Only £39 from HP \o/

I'm not rejecting the analogy at all. I'm rejecting TP's claim (and it was his) that we are doing EVERYTHING Spurs do. I'm happy to appreciate any similarities in approach, but my initial point (which TP used Spurs to counter) was about players on the pitch. We're bringing in new players every 2 years for just about every position on the park. Understandable during transitions between leagues, but thinking of next steps, either we're going to have to start retaining players longer....or spend bigger on their replacements. EDIT: And by "EVERYTHING", I mean only the 5 things I listed: 1. low wage cap - Not sure what Spurs cap is, but happy to accept if they have one similar to ours It is evdiently "no single player shall earn mroe tha £80K per week", Modric is currently on £40K (as per press reports - Daily Mirror article on Modric's twisting) 2. low transfer fees - Spurs first 11 was built at a cost of more than twice ours. They spend what they can afford nothing more, they are considerably richer than us just now. They made £68 Million in prfots whilst we were losing tens of millions. 3. selling at profit - All clubs want to do that. Agreed, although as a policy we didn't. 4. retaining our best young players - Spurs manage this better than us at the moment See no 2, we haven't been truly tested yet (and I would STILL have taken £35 Mill for Carroll) 5. finishing in the top ten - Ashley yet to manage this. Spurs doing it year on year at the moment. From a self sustaining base These are fundamentally opposed. Spurs couldn't maintain 5 if they stuck with 2. Going round in circles. Spurs spend what they can afford...so do West Brom. That similarity has no relevance on league position. We can spend what we can afford for another decade without improving our position. When you brought up a comparison with Spurs spending within their means, it was to sugest that a team can reach their position by spending within their means. But the difference is £70m+ is currently within their means, and less than £30m is (apparently) within our means. 3 years ago Spurs finished 11th and we were 12th. They pushed on to the Champions League, we got releagted They moved forward with clever investment so now they can afford the team they're maintaining, we sank without trace. Last season we finished 12th again, and we have the opportunity to do now what they did over the last 3 years, like i said though, it needs investment on the pitch. That said...Spurs reported a loss last year.

Very interesting. Those leagues should be bringing it in rather than us chasing after them though. Should be 1:1 and nowt more than a trophy for the team that comes top. ..and furry bunnies should hop merrily around the sidelines of every pitch in the league.

I'm not rejecting the analogy at all. I'm rejecting TP's claim (and it was his) that we are doing EVERYTHING Spurs do. I'm happy to appreciate any similarities in approach, but my initial point (which TP used Spurs to counter) was about players on the pitch. We're bringing in new players every 2 years for just about every position on the park. Understandable during transitions between leagues, but thinking of next steps, either we're going to have to start retaining players longer....or spend bigger on their replacements. EDIT: And by "EVERYTHING", I mean only the 5 things I listed: 1. low wage cap - Not sure what Spurs cap is, but happy to accept if they have one similar to ours 2. low transfer fees - Spurs first 11 was built at a cost of more than twice ours. 3. selling at profit - All clubs want to do that. 4. retaining our best young players - Spurs manage this better than us at the moment 5. finishing in the top ten - Ashley yet to manage this. Spurs doing it year on year at the moment. These are fundamentally opposed. Spurs couldn't maintain 5 if they stuck with 2.

If anything Spuds have thrown money at trying to move up the league but aren't progressing to the level we were when Robson was sacked. They spend so much because they sell well. The fact is Spurs are only enjoying a good few seasons because they have a good manager who knows what he's doing. Before Redknapp came along they were piss poor and making up numbers. Once he leaves for the England job then they'll be fucked as he's built a good squad that won't hold together without him. Our approach this season has been the right one - try and sign then maintain a group of lads who are prepared to work as a team and establish strong relationships. Pardew is a good manager in that respect; he would've won promotion with Reading had he not turned Judas years back. Whilst we don't show enough ambition, it has to be said that we're sorting out the finance side of the football club so that when the FFP rules are introduced we'll be in a stronger position than clubs whose debt is far more severe than ours. We're proving that there are plenty of players about who don't command huge fees that would fit into the top end teams. The days of signing players for £20million are over for us, and thankfully that's great news. Towards the end of his tenure, FFS was making some abysmal transfers that didn't suit the best interests of the club. We gave Souness £50million to spend and he responded by laying the foundations for our relegation. Now we rely heavily on a scouting network that is turning up some great signings at minimal expenditure which is turning us into a team with potential again. I'm not saying the board is brilliant - i think in the long run they will never turn us into a consistently top-half-finishing team because they're not interested in doing so. We should never have sold Enrique and Carroll without having proper replacements lined up. We still need a striker and a left back (whilst Ba and Best are playing well, we don't have enough depth whilst Santon has yet to play a competitive game). They're steadying the ship after they helped capsize it. What I'm trying to say is we're not going backwards, rather we're in a transitional phase where we could realistically go either way. If we can strengthen the team and keep the unity that the team is displaying then we'll be in the best position we've been since FMA took over. QFT

Simply because what we appear to be doing now, which cannot conceivably work (according to many) is exactly what they have done for years and I would have the temerity to suggest, has in fact "worked". I would have thought a demonstrable real example, of our stated strategy (if carried through) actually working in practice would cause pause for thought on the "it can never work" mindset. But it's not a demonstrable example, because as I said previously Spurs are doing a LOT of things differently. We all hope that at some point in the future we'll start emulating them with investment levels on the pitch in order to take the next step, but it's a pipe dream at the moment, and no indication Ashley has any intention of moving towards it.. We'd need to turn a £30m profit every year for 10 years to clear our debt and be in the picture you paint of Spurs as a debt free club able to spend significantly more without risking their financial status.

Maybe we will, over time, becasue all the things we appear to be doing (which cannot conceivably work) thay have done for years. "All the things"? It's difficult to attribute cause and effect when there's so many variables. West Brom have kept costs down, invested in cheap but solid players that can do a job, turned a profit etc. I've not seen anything to indicate we'll push on any more than them. More informative than what you say we're TRYING to emulate about Spurs is what we aren't. We've spent less than £30m on our first 11. They've spent £70m+. We sell players under contract that want to leave (Carroll, Enrique). They keep hold of them (Modric). They market the club to top quality, paying advertisers (attracted primarily by the quality on the pitch rather than any signs plastered on the wall showing "potential") that add to revenue. We cheapen the brand more and more every week with Sports Direct signs replacing those of paying advertisers at an increasing rate. if Toonpack says we are doing things like Spurs then he's the expert....shame he doesn't respond to my question asking him how many times we did things better than Spurs in terms of league positions and revenues between 1992 and 2007, his selective points only begin when his man actually took over the club. Probably cos there's no point talking about shit from 20 years ago.

Maybe we will, over time, becasue all the things we appear to be doing (which cannot conceivably work) thay have done for years. "All the things"? It's difficult to attribute cause and effect when there's so many variables. West Brom have kept costs down, invested in cheap but solid players that can do a job, turned a profit etc. I've not seen anything to indicate we'll push on any more than them. More informative than what you say we're TRYING to emulate about Spurs is what we aren't. We've spent less than £30m on our first 11. They've spent £70m+. We sell players under contract that want to leave (Carroll, Enrique). They keep hold of them (Modric). They market the club to top quality, paying advertisers (attracted primarily by the quality on the pitch rather than any signs plastered on the wall showing "potential") that add to revenue. We cheapen the brand more and more every week with Sports Direct signs replacing those of paying advertisers at an increasing rate.

Absolutley. And that's why I don't think they can pull it off. It's simple enough to have a policy and tell everyone about it. My mates policy is to only have his cock sucked by huge tittied under 25's with perfect skin and legs that don't stop. This policy is rather hindered by him being an ugly twat that no woman in her right mind would go near. My policy is to not take a job for less than £100k and more than 25 hours a week, unfortunately my qualifications mean that adhering to the policy has left me unemployed. Our policies of a low wage cap, low transfer fees, selling at profit, retaining our best young players, and finishing in the top ten are fundamentally opposed to one another. The first 3 take priority over the last 2. I wonder how low our wage bill (and average wage) actually is in comparison to others. I haven't a clue. Modric was twisting because he was only (only !!!!) on £40k/week at Spurs, speaking of which, Spurs have been doing, for years, all the things we have stated is our policy, with some success I would suggest. I thought the quote was "with resale value", that's a much different thing to "profit", although given the way clubs amorticise (sp?) transfers, a profit is often made when a fee's involved, we made just shy of £5 million profit on Enrique. Don't think there's any comparison with spurs. Can't check just now but I'd guess their first team cost at least double ours. But they have no/minimal debt (what they have, was for training centre improvements), have a team (I'll take your word for it, sounds about right) costing twice as much as ours, have had less turnover than us for long periods (according to LM but I haven't checked), yet have turned profits totalling £68 Million (ish - off the top of my head from last time I added it up) since around 2005. How does that work We'll not be able to match them unless we're willing to match their spending on the first 11. It starts and ends there.