GlastonSpur

I expect Spurs are playimg hardball and demanding unrealistic amounts for him as GlastonSpur alludes to.

I didn't say that at all.

I said that Spurs will probably wait until a new manager is appointed and has had a chance to review his squad options, which might of course lead to deciding to keep Naughton.

I also said that - IF Spurs were willing to sell - it's unrealistic to expect they'll do so without expecting to sell at a profit.

.... Recouping a transfer fee that was £8mil for both Walker and Naughton is rather unrealistic in reality isn't it, in fact it's patent nonsense, football really doesn't work like that. I presume Naughton has 2 years left on his contract and given that he's been loaned to three different clubs in his three years at Spurs, it's fairly obvious he's not wanted at Spurs or at least that's the message that comes across to the outside world (and probably the player himself).

In fact as if to prove this point, would Spurs sell Walker if the initial fee was recouped? no thought not, they'd be considered a bit bonkers because he's worth at least £10mil in today's money. (even if he can't defend very well - his stock is high). Naughton may still be worth £4mil but is that the initial fee? I doubt it, one suspects the initial split was heavier on Naughton's side when it came to book valuation, most likely a £5mil / £3mil split

Spurs paid 10m (not 8m) for the pair, so going by your 'split-ratio' that would make Naughton's value 6.25m at the time.

Since then he's proven he can operate well at Prem level, which means (a) he's less of a gamble than compared to when Spurs signed him; and thus ( his value has increased.

Regardless of what the actual split ratio was for Naughton, it defies common sense to believe that Spurs will sell a promising young player, who is less of a gamble now than when Spurs signed him, for less than what they paid for him. In fact, common sense should tell you that Spurs, if they choose to sell, will be expecting to make (at least) a small profit ... all the more so since Villa wouldn't be the only Prem club interested in Naughton.

I don't think any decision about Naughton's future will be decided by Spurs until after a new manager is in place and has had a chance to consider things.

On the surface of things there might be a good chance that Naughton would be sold, provided that more money was offered than Spurs paid for him. But on the other hand, he would provide decent cover for Walker at RB and Lennon at RW, plus extra cover (beyond Vertonghen) for Ekotto at LB. Such versatility might be valued by the new manager, especialy given that Naughton now has some solid Prem experience under his belt.

Anyhow, it'll be a while before things become clearer either way.

Spurs pre Harry are where we are now. ... .

That's not really true though is it.

Pre-Harry Spurs under Jol finished 5th twice (missed 4th by a whisker) ... and even under Ramos we won the League Cup.

... Levy is saving money to try and build a new stadium. I don't think Spurs would fork out big money for a player unless one is sold.

We have a big list of players who can be sold without really affecting the squad quality or depth. They include (but are not limited to):

Jenas

Bentley

dos Santos

Corluka

Bassong

Pienaar

Gomes

Selling these, coupled with our low net spend over the last 5 windows, means that Spurs could easily afford to spend big on Hazard without selling Modric or Bale.

We could also do so despite the plans for a new stadium. Apart from anything else, Levy is too good a chairman to make the mistake of under-investing in the squad .... because he knows that a strong squad means a good possibility of CL football each season, which in turn can mean a huge increase in club income each year.

Don't see Hazard going to Spurs.. I don't see them forking out the £££ required either for him unless they sell Bale or Modric.

Spurs have spent very little for some time now (a net spend of just 8m spread over the last 5 windows), so we could certainly afford to spend big on Hazard without needing to sell Bale or Modric first.

So let's say Darren Bent wants to leave, in the same way Gareth Barry, Milner, Young and Downing wanted too. What would YOU do to stop them wanting to leave? Offer a bigger contract? They did that. Show "ambition"? They don't have the money to compete the same way the top 6 do.

So, how would you convince players to stay?

You're not necessarily forced to convince anyone to stay.

When a player still has several years left on their contract you can always just tell 'em that they're staying, like it or not. Yes, there is a potential downside to that, but there is also an upside ... perhaps a very long-term upside.

Around 150k a week at City. I imagine Spurs are paying maybe 60/70% of the total figure.

Spurs are paying half of his wages.

Does any one think they will keep Modric..?

Shorely Chelsea win come in for him in the January transfer window.

Did he not say he wanted to leave for them...?

There is zero chance that Modric will leave in January. Even if Modric again agitated for such a move - which he won't - he wouldn't be sold.

Spurs are in 3rd place, 2 points ahead of Chelsea, with a game in hand. The club is not going to sell their best player mid-season when there is so much to play for.

3-0 Villa, youth to beat the ageing spuds ....

Ageing? The average age of the 10 outfield players for Spurs that I expect to start tonight is 23.5.

On paper, given we're in form and at home, I'd expect a Spurs win, but we all know there's many a slip twixt cup and post.

Anyhow, let's hope for an entertaining match regardless of the result.

VdV has tweeted that he's "ready to play tomorrow". If so I guess he'll start, playing in his usual role behind Adebayor, with Defoe on the bench.

... is dawson injured?

Yes, Dawson has been out for quite a long while and won't be back for a long while yet. The same for Huddlestone. Danny Rose and Kranjcar are also injured, but that's more short-term.

Anyone out injured for Villa?

This is the Spurs line-up I'd expect:

----------- Friedel

Walker - Kaboul - King - Ekotto

-------- Parker - Modric

Lennon ---- VdV* -- Bale

--------- Adebayor

Subs: Cudicini, Corluka, Gallas, Sandro, Livermore, Defoe, Pavlyuchenko

* Or Defoe in place of VdV in a 4-4-2 if it's decided to give the latter's hamstring tweak more healing time.

That's pretty much the line-up that's started for several games in a row now. And it really is an unexpected bonus that King has been fit for so many games thus far - he transmits calmess and stability right across the team, especially the back 4 of course.

... Yes you had a nice time in Europe but it hasn't benefited your club in the long run. ....

Well, it brought in an estimated £45-50m of extra cash and also provides belief to the players that what was done once can be done again.

I don't know whether some or all of that money will be spent in January or instead put towards a new stadium, but the player belief in their ability will go a long way in helping Spurs to be there or thereabouts for top 4 come the season end.

.... Basically, Redknapp **** up big time in several areas last season. But his chummy relationship with the press has kept him safe in his job when most other managers would be getting torn to shreds.

Harry is a motormouth and says a lot of silly things in public, but the bottom line is that with him at the helm we finished 4th and reached the CL QFs ... which is much more than can be said for many previous managers at Spurs going back a long way.

Managers usually get sacked (or not) based on results. The idea that Harry's job is under threat (and is only "safe" because of his chummy press relationship) doesn't really stand up IMO. He's been in charge for 2 full seasons: we finished 4th and 5th, both in the face of continued mega spendng by City. If that's a sackable offence then I give up.

We've also under Harry spent a lot less in net terms than under several previous managers. That can be seen as a criticism, namely that we didn't improve the squad enough during the summer after we finished 4th. Or perhaps Levy concluded that trying to compete with City in the transfer market would be a fool's errand and that he'd rather save up some of the CL cash bonus to put towards a new stadium ... of which I hear that some good news is on its way.

Outside of a few argumentative delusionaries here on VT you'd be hard pushed to find a single fan who would claim that Meireles is on a par with Modric.

That wasn't the discussion being had though Glaston. If you look back, the phrase you used was "significant downgrade" and I believe that is what was being discussed.

Meireles is a significant downgrade and very obviously so.

Chelsea bid 30m + Alex for Modric, but ended up signing Meireles for 12m because they couldn't get Modric. That's an effective bid difference of at least 28m and probably more. The price differential alone speaks volumes ... and seeking Modric play last season as compared to Meireles should tell you even more.

Modric is one of the best 3 or 4 CMs in the Prem ... which is why Chelsea were desperate to get him. Meireles is far from being in that class, which is why Liverpool let him go.

Asking price and value are two different things.

True ... but not 28m different.

Outside of a few argumentative delusionaries here on VT you'd be hard pushed to find a single fan who would claim that Meireles is on a par with Modric.

... Say wha? Meireles is a bloody good player. Chelsea's first choice target he may not have been, but a "significant downgrade" on Modrić he ain't.

This is obvious nonsense:

1) Chelsea were were prepared to bid 30m + Alex for Modric. This is far, far less than they were prepared to bid for Meireles, which speaks volumes.

2) If Meireles was that good, how come Liverpool sold him? And how come they sold him for for just 12m?

Meireles is a good player. but Modric is in a different class entirely.

... Light was better before 1990, therefore your post is irrelevant.

At the speed of light in a vacuum, time doesn't pass for a photon (it has the maximum possible velocity through space and thus zero velocity through time).

Therefore your post - and its reference to "before 1990" - is meaningless.

I agree here. You think Chelsea only went with one option for the summer, and that was Modric? ...

No, I don't think that. But clearly Modric was their main CM target and their main target overall - they failed to get him and ended up with a player (Meireles) who is, by any standards, a significant downgrade compared to Modric.

.... you got **** all in (40 year old keeper and a moody ex-Gooner) ...

Really? You forgot Parker, Walker returning from loan and several young prospects arriving like Coulibaly, Ceballos and Falque Silva.

The fact is that Adebayor is an upgrade on Crouch and likewise Parker for Palacios. Couple that with Walker now competing for the RB slot, plenty of deadwood shifted out and off the wage bill ... and I'd say Spurs have done not too badly in this window.

.... now Liverpool are pulling off, you're not even as good as Arsenal...

That remains to be seen does it not?

.... Arsenal, at least they managed to get Arteta and Mertesacker....

LOL ..... and lost Nasri, Fabregas, Clichy and several others.

.... Chelsea are laughing at you. ...

This is an amazing attempt at re-writing history, but nonetheless silly: Chelski wasted their summer on Modric and ended up with a Plan C or D player ... a last-minute panic buy. I know plenty of Spurs fans who are having a nice chuckle at Chelski's arrogant stupidity.

Instead of automatically seeking to snipe, some VTers might do better to take a more considered view.

Oi Dickhead

This is a Villa forum so remember where you are, we can snipe at your bag of shite all we like ...

Of course you can, and I haven't said you can't. I merely said you might do better not to: less heat, more light.

Obviously it's up to you and clearly you've made your choice. But at the end of the day, no amount of the sniping that occurred at my earlier statement that Modric's staying was "nailed on" will hide the fact that I was right.

Heat 0 - Light 1. FT score.

... He has disillusioned your best player who wont be as effectivve as last season adn wont get 20 million for him in January if he has a shocker and Man Utd come in

Wishful thinking I'm afraid.

Besides, Spurs won't sell him in January, and even if they did that's when prices tend to be higher than in the summer ... for obvious reasons.

... It wasn't as clear cut as you thought it was though i bet and I still believe that you can't just say that he was nailed on to stay even though, in the end, he did. Unless you talked directly to Levy that is.

If it's true that Chelsea offered 40m pounds for him (I highly doubt it personally) do you think Levy was right in rejecting it?

It was clear from Levy's public statement that Modric would not be sold: never before has he drawn such a strong, line-in-the-sand.

When coupled with the fact that we weren't desperate for money (when the latest annual accounts are published this Autumn they will show our highest ever income by quite some margin), plus Modric's long contract, plus info. from one or two of the best Spurs ITKs (feel free to be sceptical, but in my experience they are usually right), I never had any doubt that Modric would be staying come hell or high water. That's why I said "nailed on".

Those who believed that Levy would sell our best player just 1 year into a 6 year contract - and to Chelski ffs - were total mugs. It was never going to happen.

Chelski wasted their summer in pursuit of the unnattainable. And the price they paid for their stupidity and arrogance is a last-minute panic buy, Meireles, who I doubt was even Plan C, let alone Plan B.

I believe the last-minute bid was not 40m, but 30m + Alex. And yes, I think Levy was right to reject it, for the reasons I've given in an above post.

I agree, nice to see a club stand up for itself. He was happy to sign the long term contract with extra earnings, so he should show some honour. If you keep letting players bully you into leaving, then you are setting a precedence and you can expect it to keep happening.

Exactly so. And this, in addition to Modric being our best player, was the key reason why Levy refused to sell; to crush so-called "player power" at Spurs and put at end to the cycle that began with Carrick and continued through Berbatov and Keane. Otherwise, it might have continued into the future through Bale, Sandro, Walker and who knows who else.

The longer-term benefits are immense. No more will any Spurs player on a long contract believe that they can just leave whenever they want, and wealthy clubs will think twice about wasting their summer in pursuit of such Spurs players if Levy says "not for sale".

IF Spurs choose to sell Modric next summer, then we'll still get a big price for him. Turning down 30m + Alex for Modric is worth it for what Levy has achieved: hats off off to him.

No that can't be true GlastonSpur said it was "nailed on" that he would be at Spurs next season.

Yes, I did. And you were saying?

Not the way you envisioned it though eh?

Remember you bragging about how he would not want to leave and had no reason to leave.It was certainly a lot closer than you thought and you clearly sat up sweating until the deadline had passed so you could post that smug comment ....

Incorrect. I never said that. I simply said that his staying was "nailed on" - and the bottom line is that I was right, and all the sceptics on here were wrong.

I also said, some weeks ago, that Hutton was "very, very likely" to sign for Villa. Again the relayed information, none of which originates from me (as I have said many times before), was correct.

Instead of automatically seeking to snipe, some VTers might do better to take a more considered view.