TartarugaJones

€8m for Eriksen anyone? http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/voetbal/ajax/21843106/__Spurs_biedt_op_Eriksen__.html

You forgot £2m for Parker. I left it out as it was undisclosed and it doesn't change the overall point anyway. That point being that you quite plausibly are not spending the Bale money at the moment. Agreed!

You forgot £2m for Parker.

This transfer saga has always been down to what Real are and aren't prepared to do. I think it still is! I hope it falls through too! But for different reasons.

And if he doesn't, and he has a poor season (for whatever reason), he'll be worth less. A player's value therefore is a calculation based on his current quality, plus the chance he'll improve (and the degree to which he'll improve), less the chance he won't. Personally I think Villa valued him about right this summer, and I expect him to improve, prove his consistent quality and be worth more next season, but at the same time the fact that he might not needs to be taken into account too. LOL nice definition, do you work in valuation by any chance? I really don't get the point in half of your post, my own post did contain a number of if's, you're really just posting the converse, which goes without saying. Something like that!!! Mine was a bit of a nerdy/academic point, not necessarily directed at you, but to say that people often forget the opposite side of the equation in their value calculations.

And if he doesn't, and he has a poor season (for whatever reason), he'll be worth less. A player's value therefore is a calculation based on his current quality, plus the chance he'll improve (and the degree to which he'll improve), less the chance he won't. Personally I think Villa valued him about right this summer, and I expect him to improve, prove his consistent quality and be worth more next season, but at the same time the fact that he might not needs to be taken into account too.

I disagree to be honest fella and I will tell you why, I don't expect to change your mind but you might see how many view Spurs because other peoples perceptions are usually very different to how people view themselves. I agree with you that every clubs supporters are largely the same and made up of the same elements or groups (except Liverpool) I guess it is just the numbers in each group that varies. You say about having more run in's with Spurs fan's and that is undoubtable a part of it, the reason for that I'm not certain but I put it down to others fans are more secure in their superiority. I've been a mod on here for years and I can tell you we just don't get fans of other clubs in anywhere near the same sort of numbers that we do Spurs fans. In fact you could probably add up all the away fans of other teams and they still wouldn't match the number of Spurs fans we've had. The difference is the likes of Chelsea fans are secure in their superiority, they don't need to come on here and tell us how good they are. Yet Spurs fans do regularly and please don't think that is anyway a reference to you, I don't consider you to be doing that. You are just a chap wanting to talk football. Yet others have come insistent on telling us how great Spurs are, how Dos Santos is going to be the next whoever, how Gomes is going to be the best keeper in the PL... I could go on. We've had lots of it from your fellow Spurs fans and none of it from other clubs really and a lot of people, myself included are thoroughly sick of Spurs fans as a collective yet I quite like, admire and respect the club by and large. There is if you don't mind me saying an arrogance about Spurs fans, a belief that they are a big club far bigger than they actually are and far more successful than your trophy cabinet would suggest. Then add to it there is the stuff about the Spurs way of playing, which is a bit like deluded West Ham fans and is guaranteed to wind up opposition fans. You say yourself that you've had to put up with years of abuse from Arsenal fans and it seems to me that a lot of Spurs fans have got a little too used to trying to convince the world you are a big club. Spurs aren't one of the biggest clubs in the country, they are in the same category as the likes of Everton and Villa you just happen to have been run far better in recent years. As for cheering us on the year we looked like we had 4th, obviously you were cheering us on. Everyone wants to see the Sky 4 brought down a peg or two, especially Spurs fans when the team that looks like being the victim is their local rival. Most Villa fans don't particularly mind Spurs, I wouldn't mind at all seeing you take 4th from Arsenal but I would dread the crowing from some of your own. Anyway, that is my two pence worth and I think a fair few amongst those on here will think the same. None of the above is a reflection on you as a poster though, you seem a very reasonable sort. Are you sure you support Spurs? Fair enough. And for the sake of balance I was on here when the whole Benteke thing was going on and so I can see what you mean. I think that it's probably the same with every clubs, but the fact that there's more of us Spurs fans on here than other fans is interesting in itself.

Spurs fans are no different from any other, there's nothing in the water down our way, our genes are the same, we have the same mix of delusional, fanatic, reasonable, balanced, one-eyed whatever supporters as any other club. I guess you've probably just had more run-ins with Spurs fans than Chelsea one's? Or maybe it's just the rivalry's more intense because we're trying to fill the same space? What I would say is that in my part of North London I have had to put up with years of abuse from Arsenal supporting friends and regulars in the Pub, and honestly there are some entitled, obnoxious nob-ends there, but however much I don't like them, I'd still want Chelsea to **** up before them! Everything they stand for is wrong, I find it hard to fathom how others see it differently. Same goes for City, although at least they had a decent support in the lean years, and you feel they deserve it in some way... [Edit] In that year you had fourth nailed down for a while I was willing you on, gutted when you didn't, but encouraged that you gave it a good go. It's that cartel at the top who've been the issue, any one of us, you, Everton, who can break into it should be a cause for celebration and optimism for the rest of us.

What is it with some people preferring Chelsea and their horrible owner, over Spurs. Whatever the rivalries surely Chelsea should be the one's people don't like? I know that while I want neither Arsenal nor Chelsea to do well if I had a choice between one or the other it would be Arsenal before Chelsea every time. Everything that club stands for is surely wrong?

I think the sense was that AVB didn't fancy him. If true, maybe not because he isn't a fantastic player, but because when you have a player as strong as he is in the air it can tend to tempt the rest of the team to pump the ball up to him at the first opportunity? If your manager didn't want him, why spend the close season whispering sweet nothings in his ear. Is that what happened?

I think the sense was that AVB didn't fancy him. If true, maybe not because he isn't a fantastic player, but because when you have a player as strong as he is in the air it can tend to tempt the rest of the team to pump the ball up to him at the first opportunity?

The Premier League should make it obligatory, and the club's aren't allowed to say who it is until the curtain pulls back: "Is it Willian? Is it Lamela...?" [drum roll] "No, it's Carlton Cole!!!!!!!"

Agent's fees are paid to agents not clubs so wouldn't balance out. I don't get what you mean?

Unlucky tonight guys!! Should have been a Pen, and Weisman's shot would have been a goal if it had been a foot either direction! Must be feeling pretty optimistic though? I hadn't realised what a murderously tough start you had to the season; two away games again Arsenal and Chelsea, but three points, if we get such a return against those two I'll be happy! Also, how lucky is that for Chelsea to get two home games to begin the season with!

In the last five windows (including this one), we've spent £9m in total, over the same period you've spent £14m! Our turnover is around £185m, your's is around £115m. According to the last published accounts (2012) our wage-bill was £90m, about 55% of turnover at that time, your's was £80m, 87.5%. So we have a higher income, but have spent considerably less on transfers. We do spend more on wages but our income to wage ratio is pretty healthy. We're not finding money, we're just bringing our spending in line with Aston Villa's over the last couple of seasons, This is some truly brilliant accounting or some The Sun reporting Spurs have spent well over £9m in total. I presume this refers to net spend. Turnover can easily be enhanced to whatever you like (ask Peterboro who got their holding company to sponsor the ground to make the top figure on the accounts look a lot higher. Randy Lerner could do the same if he so wished) Spurs wage bill is higher than villa's, see my previous comment RE the fact that the turnover ratio is irrelevant How about you talk bottom line and net profit/losses then you will be comparing apples with apples. I have no idea what profit/losses either club are making but from a business perspective surely it's the only real fair comparative as it encompasses all of the facts above. We made a small profit over the four seasons prior to and including the last published accounts of about £20m. Villa made a loss of £156m over the same period.

The accounts for the period including the current window haven't been published yet so you've made this figure up. Net spends don't include signing on fees, image rights, loyalty bonuses, agent fees and paying up a percentage of the player's contract & bonuses upon selling them. You may as well have chosen a number between 0 and 100 and it would be just an accurate barometer of the net spend during the period you have mentioned. I didn't include agents fees for either club, but seeing as they're a fraction of the total transfer fee they're not a massive add-on, and we can be fairly safe in assuming they'll be roughly equivalent. The fees are calculated from: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html The Turnover is a calculation based on last published accounts: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club and I then added the new TV money to that. The wages are taken from the same Guardian source, our wages have almost certainly decreased since then considering the number of high earners who've departed: King, Modric, Bentley, VdV etc (and soon to be Bale), but I haven't tried a back of the envelope calc for Villa, hence it was safer to use the ratio from the last accounts, the ratio for both clubs will almost certainly be better for both clubs. They are certainly estimates, but the assumptions are pretty sound and while the truth maybe slightly different it won't be a million miles away. I haven't also included the £40m we spent on our training facility which was paid for via a loan, but which may explain the low net spend on transfers in previous windows. Nor the fact that we need to raise money for the new stadium. The over all point is that we're not spending outrageous amounts even compared to a rival like yourselves who undoubtedly have a lower income but in the last five windows have spent at a similar level.

In the last five windows (including this one), we've spent £9m in total, over the same period you've spent £14m! Our turnover is around £185m, your's is around £115m. According to the last published accounts (2012) our wage-bill was £90m, about 55% of turnover at that time, your's was £80m, 87.5%. So we have a higher income, but have spent considerably less on transfers. We do spend more on wages but our income to wage ratio is pretty healthy. We're not finding money, we're just bringing our spending in line with Aston Villa's over the last couple of seasons,

Are they though? They've only bought Soldado so far who is a big name, and Coentrao if that somehow happens. The rest have been promising young players from abroad, but they also have somewhere in the region of £100m of income on the horizon, so can afford to spend bigger on the more promising players. Paulinho, a Brazilian international who starred in their recent confederation cup win isn't established? He's only 25 though. I don't think anyone would object to buying a 25 year old. It's Soldado who's the big money purchase considering he'll have much lower sell-on value at 31 when we'll potentially be looking to move him on.

How do you mean 'named', experienced players?

Would you believe it, that wily old Mr Levy spent £3m to get the sell-on clause removed from his contract a year or so after we bought him! He was a young player they developed though, so they still get something, I think I read it will be around £2m

That video gave me aids... I don't even have the volume on and I still want to murder everyone involved. It's quite the watch. Mate, it'll be number 1, mark my words!!! Btw, did I mention that we're going to win the league too!

Well done boys, well done indeed!!!!!

Must have been. I couldn't believe how passive Villa were. Whatever kind of day you're having you can at least fight for the ball!

You reckon we can av' em? Course you can, and if you're going to the Library then opening day of the season is the best day to do it! I think you've got a strong team, a very good manager and with Benteke you can play the sort of game they don't like. The only thing I would say is that in the games we played against you last season (more so at Villa park than WHL) I've noticed a tendency for you to be quite passive off the ball, I don't know if that's the way Lambert has them set out to play, but personally I prefer the pressing game. More importantly I think Arsenal don't.

Best of luck lads!!! Today I bleed claret and blue! If I open my window I can sometimes hear the crowd when they score, so this afternoon let's hope for the blissful London silence of sirens and whatnot