Can't stop looking at the premiership league table

[LeazesMag 0]

there is more to football than a "man to man" comparison.

 

And for starters, some of the best current players will be gone within the next 18 months to 2 years too, just like the best players from 18 months to 2 years ago have gone now.

 

I made a post months ago about the spirit of the team, and the fact that Nolan and Barton in particular were the driving force behind it. I said that it is highly likely we could start the current season with a more mobile team in the first half dozen games or so which would fool the idiots into thinking it had been a good window

 

Unfortunately, there are over 30 games left, in all sorts of conditions etc. We will see. I stand by my view. As always. And unlike some other certain grey men and assorted cretins, I'm prepared to actually give an opinion, stick by it, and admit that I am wrong if that proves to be the case.

 

But I won't be. The club is in decline.

I absolutely agree there's more to the club than a man - to - man comparison, which is why I not only mentioned player by player comparison, but also the groups and the team as a whole. You're yet to say why you think it's weaker though. This may seem pedantic, but given your insistence people give their views, it seems reasonable to expect you to do the same. As yet you've stated it's weaker, but given no evidence for your statement so I'll ask it again why do you think we're weaker and what is the evidence to back up your belief?

 

You mention the spirit of the team and I agree that Nolan and Barton were instrumental in the camaraderie that was evident in the Championship season and the 1st season back. However, we have not played the pre-season, nor the first 7 games without spirit.I would suggest that, in fact, the performances have been driven more by secure tactical drilling and defensive strength. The spirit which you speak of is important, but I have seen no evidence of it's disappearance and would challenge you to prove your argument.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph.

 

I've no problems with the purchase of Demba Ba and Cabaye, however, a club that desired to make progress would have kept Nolan, Carroll and Enrique. There was no reason to sell those players to finance the signings of those 2 players. I'm sure you realise that, for starters, those 2 plus Marveau [where is he] and Obertan have still left the owner with a massive amount of money stuck in his back pocket. We should have Demba Ba and Cabaye in the team and squad alongside the 3 players we have sold.

 

This pattern is going to be the pattern under Ashley. But we will not make astute signings all the time. I've said this a million times, and the same cretins keep disagreeing and saying I am "arguing", but if football worked like that, the trophy winning clubs would have been doing it for decades, but as it happens, all the teams in the entire history of the game in this country that have put together consistently high placed and successful teams have done it by keeping their best players as much as possible and backing their managers to bring other top players to their clubs.

 

This is not a secret recipe for success or anything, its just common sense.

 

I fail to see how losing our top 2 goalscorers of last season, plus our player of the year [none of which needed to be sold and were all under contract and could have stayed], one of them for an absurd free transfer, is "good business" and means we have came out of it "better off". You are basing it on the opening fixtures, against the weaker teams in the league. As I said, I thought you were one of the posters with more sense.

 

Having watched the team, it is exactly as I thought it may turn out, they have more mobility ie Cabaye for Nolan, in the opening games, but there is a long way to go. I think when the going gets tough, we may miss the likes of Nolan and Barton. We will certainly miss Enrique and Carroll [who should be playing alongside Demba Ba, given we haven't seen the transfer money and aren't going to see it], and do already.

 

I stand by my view. As I said, unlike other posters, I'll make these views and if I am wrong, I'll hold my hand up and admit it.

 

But I'm not. The club is in long term decline, expectations have already fallen, and people are making excuses for it.

[Toonpack 9978]

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.

 

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.

Aye, you're absolutely spot on again. The Spurs comparison only holds up to a (very limited) point. There's arguably a lot more differences than similarities between us and the way in which we're ran.

 

There is, they've been doing it for years, us not so long.

 

The comparison is pretty good IMO, similar revenue's. They've now dug their heels in over Modric, but what about Carrick, Berbatov etc

 

They buy with resale value and have maximised it, fuck all debt, £68 Million in profits over the years from a similar income base. Maybe that's how they've spent more on the team recently, I would guess (as I haven't looked it up) that over the years they've spent less than us and they've had a long standing wage cap (currently max £80K/week if reports are correct).

[LeazesMag 0]

 

Probably cos there's no point talking about shit from 20 years ago.

 

No! We must talk about it it's important.

 

We need the same four or five people to bring up the same subject in every single thread so that we can see who's obsessed and who was right. It's very important to the majority of the boards readership. Who cares what the thread's called, deep down it's really about Freddie Shepherd and Mike Ashley.

 

 

its not really Tom, its about 2 different approaches to running a football club.

 

In my view, there is only one way to attempt to be truly successful, and all the successful clubs in the history of the game have taken this approach.

[Tom 14013]

 

Probably cos there's no point talking about shit from 20 years ago.

 

No! We must talk about it it's important.

 

We need the same four or five people to bring up the same subject in every single thread so that we can see who's obsessed and who was right. It's very important to the majority of the boards readership. Who cares what the thread's called, deep down it's really about Freddie Shepherd and Mike Ashley.

 

 

its not really Tom, its about 2 different approaches to running a football club.

 

In my view, there is only one way to attempt to be truly successful, and all the successful clubs in the history of the game have taken this approach.

 

Regardless of subject matter it keeps cropping up everywhere and it's the same small group who seem keen on talking about it. We don't ban people (unless they are complete divvies) but we might have to keep it in one thread.

 

We'll have to have a think.

[Guest alex]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see how listing stuff Spurs have done that we haven't done makes for a good comparison between them and ourselves.

[Toonpack 9978]

 

I've no problems with the purchase of Demba Ba and Cabaye, however, a club that desired to make progress would have kept Nolan, Carroll and Enrique. There was no reason to sell those players to finance the signings of those 2 players. I'm sure you realise that, for starters, those 2 plus Marveau [where is he] and Obertan have still left the owner with a massive amount of money stuck in his back pocket. We should have Demba Ba and Cabaye in the team and squad alongside the 3 players we have sold.

 

This pattern is going to be the pattern under Ashley. But we will not make astute signings all the time. I've said this a million times, and the same cretins keep disagreeing and saying I am "arguing", but if football worked like that, the trophy winning clubs would have been doing it for decades, but as it happens, all the teams in the entire history of the game in this country that have put together consistently high placed and successful teams have done it by keeping their best players as much as possible and backing their managers to bring other top players to their clubs.

 

This is not a secret recipe for success or anything, its just common sense.

 

I fail to see how losing our top 2 goalscorers of last season, plus our player of the year [none of which needed to be sold and were all under contract and could have stayed], one of them for an absurd free transfer, is "good business" and means we have came out of it "better off". You are basing it on the opening fixtures, against the weaker teams in the league. As I said, I thought you were one of the posters with more sense.

 

Having watched the team, it is exactly as I thought it may turn out, they have more mobility ie Cabaye for Nolan, in the opening games, but there is a long way to go. I think when the going gets tough, we may miss the likes of Nolan and Barton. We will certainly miss Enrique and Carroll [who should be playing alongside Demba Ba, given we haven't seen the transfer money and aren't going to see it], and do already.

 

I stand by my view. As I said, unlike other posters, I'll make these views and if I am wrong, I'll hold my hand up and admit it.

 

But I'm not. The club is in long term decline, expectations have already fallen, and people are making excuses for it.

 

and that is exactly what they have been doing for decades

 

The income's today have squewed the picture but the principles remain, success = income, which for some has = more success BUT they've all, for decades, done it "within the bounds of their income" and none of them have what I would call football related debt.

 

Sadly those who were "succesfull" (or on the gravy train) when the money exploded have a disporpotionate advantage and have so far been "locked in" although Liverpool and Arsenal may just be teetering.

 

As for holding their best players, check Arsenal, Nasri gone, Fabregas gone, Van Persie prevaricating. Credit to Spurs for telling Modric to fuck off, but it's going to cost them, and they had his longevity of remaining contract on their side. Even Man U had to put up with the residual contract player power crap with Rooney.

 

As for your direct Spurs question, why don't you look it up and post it for me, I'm forever posting researched facts, you never do.

[Andrew 4872]

 

Probably cos there's no point talking about shit from 20 years ago.

 

No! We must talk about it it's important.

 

We need the same four or five people to bring up the same subject in every single thread so that we can see who's obsessed and who was right. It's very important to the majority of the boards readership. Who cares what the thread's called, deep down it's really about Freddie Shepherd and Mike Ashley.

 

 

its not really Tom, its about 2 different approaches to running a football club.

 

In my view, there is only one way to attempt to be truly successful, and all the successful clubs in the history of the game have taken this approach.

 

Regardless of subject matter it keeps cropping up everywhere and it's the same small group who seem keen on talking about it. We don't ban people (unless they are complete divvies) but we might have to keep it in one thread.

 

We'll have to have a think.

 

wasnt that tried with him and ASM once? and stuck for a month or so

[ChezGiven 0]

If we lose against Spurs, Leazes is right, if we win against Spurs, Leazes is wrong. Fair enough?

[Toonpack 9978]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see how listing stuff Spurs have done that we haven't done makes for a good comparison between them and ourselves.

 

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.

[Kitman 2207]

This thread is beyond tedious now.

[Brock Manson 0]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see how listing stuff Spurs have done that we haven't done makes for a good comparison between them and ourselves.

 

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.

[Guest alex]

That's a good post, Brock and I wouldn't disagree. I was basically pointing out that we aren't really like Spurs when you closely examine the differences between the two clubs. The much vaunted notion of 'ambition' probably being the key difference. No doubt they're better at 'planning' too but lets not go there

I think seeking to draw direct a comparison between them and ourselves (and/or our future selves) is pie in the sky tbh. I'd like us to be like them but, in reality, see precious little evidence. Being asked to 'wait and see' is wearing as thin as my pate as well tbh.

[Happy Face 29]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see how listing stuff Spurs have done that we haven't done makes for a good comparison between them and ourselves.

 

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.

[Guest alex]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see how listing stuff Spurs have done that we haven't done makes for a good comparison between them and ourselves.

 

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.

That's my point though, you're comparing Spurs (erroneously imo) to us because Spurs are where you'd like us to be. Barring selling some players at a profit and seeking to introduce a wage cap (hardly a revolutionary set of principles) I'm failing to see the similarities.

Also, what is our "stated strategy" exactly?

[Happy Face 29]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see how listing stuff Spurs have done that we haven't done makes for a good comparison between them and ourselves.

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

[Toonpack 9978]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see how listing stuff Spurs have done that we haven't done makes for a good comparison between them and ourselves.

 

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.

 

From little acorns.................................

 

Even they started somewhere and what exactly are they doing differently, I'm struggling with that one tbh

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see how listing stuff Spurs have done that we haven't done makes for a good comparison between them and ourselves.

 

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.

That's my point though, you're comparing Spurs (erroneously imo) to us because Spurs are where you'd like us to be. Barring selling some players at a profit and seeking to introduce a wage cap (hardly a revolutionary set of principles) I'm failing to see the similarities.

Also, what is our "stated strategy" exactly?

 

Spurs is NOT where I'd like us to be, we should eclipse Spurs for all the reasons Pud and LM go on and on about. That is not my point at all.

 

My point is simply that there appears a consensus (on here) that living within our means cannot work long term (divining the future) yet Spurs have a record of doing exactly what we appear to be doing and it did/has worked. If even only moderately tapped, our "means" is significantly greater than most, subject to the aggresiveness of the debt reduction.

 

There is no overnight panacea - Brock's post is excellent and highlights the vaguaries of "sport" especally when commenting on Redknapp and how it can all come down to the manager, for every KK/SBR/Redknapp there's a Souness/Allardyce/Gross.

 

We're climbing out of a very deep hole, from little acorns etc etc etc

[ChezGiven 0]

Alex and Happy Face both deliberately rejecting an analogy because it doesnt absolutely work on every single level. I can take that from HF who clearly has a masters degree in pure geek but come on alex, i expect more of you

 

I thought TP was offering it more as a reference or a benchmark not a carbon copy of some strategy (that no one can agree on what that is anyway!).

 

I thought that was a top post too Brock.

[Guest alex]

Well TP, we'd have to match Spurs first to eclipse them. Also, given they're consistently hovering around 5th place with the occasional top 4 finish, can I assume you'd class eclipsing them as consistently breaking into the top 4? If that isn't what you mean, say what is.

Also, haven't you already stated that it is pretty much impossible to do that (i.e. break into the top 4) without a massive 'Man City-like' cash injection? (Or words to that effect).

Also, you haven't answered my question about what our 'stated strategy' is.

Edited October 12, 2011 by alex

[Guest alex]

Alex and Happy Face both deliberately rejecting an analogy because it doesnt absolutely work on every single level. I can take that from HF who clearly has a masters degree in pure geek but come on alex, i expect more of you

 

I thought TP was offering it more as a reference or a benchmark not a carbon copy of some strategy (that no one can agree on what that is anyway!).

 

I thought that was a top post too Brock.

I was rejecting it because, to me, it doesn't work on a number of levels.

[Happy Face 29]

Alex and Happy Face both deliberately rejecting an analogy because it doesnt absolutely work on every single level. I can take that from HF who clearly has a masters degree in pure geek but come on alex, i expect more of you

 

I thought TP was offering it more as a reference or a benchmark not a carbon copy of some strategy (that no one can agree on what that is anyway!).

 

I thought that was a top post too Brock.

 

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.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Happy Face

[Toonpack 9978]

Alex and Happy Face both deliberately rejecting an analogy because it doesnt absolutely work on every single level. I can take that from HF who clearly has a masters degree in pure geek but come on alex, i expect more of you

 

I thought TP was offering it more as a reference or a benchmark not a carbon copy of some strategy (that no one can agree on what that is anyway!).

 

I thought that was a top post too Brock.

 

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.

[Happy Face 29]

Alex and Happy Face both deliberately rejecting an analogy because it doesnt absolutely work on every single level. I can take that from HF who clearly has a masters degree in pure geek but come on alex, i expect more of you

 

I thought TP was offering it more as a reference or a benchmark not a carbon copy of some strategy (that no one can agree on what that is anyway!).

 

I thought that was a top post too Brock.

 

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.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Spurs would've made a loss in excess of £20m the year they sold Berbatov and Keane were it not for those sales. "The reality is that you’re unlikely to make that much money from transfers every year". Guess where that quote came from.

[Happy Face 29]

The Spurs approach sounds a lot like the Shepherd/Hall approach tbh...

 

In 2006 the club (Spurs) was actually in a net cash position to the tune of £24 million, but since then the debt has been rising year after year: 2007 £2 million, 2008 £15 million, 2009 £46 million and 2010 £64 million. If the liability component of the Convertible Redeemable Preference Shares were classified as debt (as the accounts do in the analysis of Total Borrowings), then the net debt could be considered as £79 million.

 

The debt comprises £50 million of bank loans, including a £15 million short-term revolving loan from HSBC and a £33 million facility with the Bank of Scotland at a floating rate linked to LIBOR; plus £25 million of loan notes at an interest rate of 7.29% repayable in equal instalments by September 2023; less £11 million of cash. All the loans are secured on club assets.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/search/label/Tottenham%20Hotspur

[The Fish 10972]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see how listing stuff Spurs have done that we haven't done makes for a good comparison between them and ourselves.

 

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.

Good post.