TrentVilla Posted November 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2011 I've just read the 'interview' on the OS and it isn't the same article that appeared in The Times from what I recall reading at the weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadoftrinity Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 [ Spurs have spent money over the years but I don't think they've spent the ridiculous amounts of money some keep banging on about. Our wage bill was out of control and theirs was still less. Also apart from 1 or 2 players I don't see them signing the quality that we could never dream about. Like I said when they got 4th crouch was upfront for them. Spurs aren't guaranteed 4th but their challenging and I don't see reasons why we can't expect to be in a similar position challenging. Spurs wage bill wasn't much less than ours, and I'm pretty sure that it's more now after we have got rid of some players, however, there wage bill is sustainable as they can create more income than us, so unfortunately it's unrealistic for us to have a squad like theirs if we are living within our means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I hear "the game has changed" a lot too. In fact no it hasn't, it has got bigger sure and there is more money around proportionatly but in essence it is still the same in that to be successfull you need the better players, that has always been the case. It has always been the case that to get the better players will cost money as well. When cloughise signed francis for £1m we all though it was ridiuclous but he was buying what he considered to be the best player for the position he wanted Then Andy Gray and Steve Daley went for 1.5M then Waddle for 4.5M ( I couldn't actually believe that one). It has always been about the club(s) with the most money being able to buy the better players. Just that the sums today have got bigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 And I think most of that is the strategy that the club is now trying to follow. You know...the one that the fans are getting really upset about. The problem is you're just assuming we have this great plan to get us back competitive. What has happened in the last 18 months to make you think that? Once again the board have failed to really make it clear what we can expect from the future. I actually don't think there is a plan as such. What I do think is that there are some broad principles club wants to adhere to such as getting the wage bill under control, developing the younger players, improve the quality of the squad, living with in our means, etc. The danger of a plan is that it may not urn out like that. There was this much vaunted five year plan when RL bought the club. Whether it ever existed I don't know but that did not stop fans complaining about deviations from a plan they had never seen. Would you prefer the club to come out and say: "we are an average premiership side who on a good day may just scrape in to Europa League otherwise its about 10th each season but we hope to do well in the cup competitions" I think a former French manager of ours upset the fans almost to a man by saying something rather similar. In truth I think the problem stems from the fact many fans do not like the messages coming from the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Lerwill Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I do think ... there are some broad principles club wants to adhere to such as getting the wage bill under control, developing the younger players, improve the quality of the squad, living with in our means, etc. Yes, you're right - and praiseworthy principles too. But why suddently (after 4 years of spend) has confused many, especially with the appointment of AM. Would you prefer the club to come out and say: "we are an average premiership side who on a good day may just scrape in to Europa League otherwise its about 10th each season but we hope to do well in the cup competitions" ... The international break seems to have caused some of us to forget the issues that concern many! :winkold: Some of us have been particularly concerned about (i) the lack of points obtained against relatively weak opposition (ii) the lack of watchable football (till the Norwich game, admittedly) and (iii) how we are to get through the next 6 weeks. And, therefore, (iv) whether there will be another relegation fight this season. We are left to wait to see what happens over the next 2 or 3 months. In truth I think the problem stems from the fact many fans do not like the messages coming from the club. Why fans would not want "messages" I'm not sure! :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDrums Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Spurs have spent. 2010/2011 - Net total of £17.5m 2008/2009 - Net total of £19.45m 2007/2008 - Net total of £33.95m 2006 / 2007 - Net total of £23.80m 2005 / 2006 - Net total of £17.75m Source: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html Since 1992 Spurs have spent significantly more than us £178m net total whilst we have spent £127m nt. We have been playing catch up with investment for quite a number of years. Spurs also have a chairman who has a reputation for being ruthless when it comes to selling players, and squeezes every last penny out of people he does business with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 also am sure most of our net spend occured between 06-09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I still wait for the answer to Trents question....3 things you learned from that interview... well a starter for 10 - his kid has started in a US school......er pass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2011 Enough on Spurs please lets keep this on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Spurs have spent. 2010/2011 - Net total of £17.5m 2008/2009 - Net total of £19.45m 2007/2008 - Net total of £33.95m 2006 / 2007 - Net total of £23.80m 2005 / 2006 - Net total of £17.75m Source: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html Since 1992 Spurs have spent significantly more than us £178m net total whilst we have spent £127m nt. We have been playing catch up with investment for quite a number of years. Spurs also have a chairman who has a reputation for being ruthless when it comes to selling players, and squeezes every last penny out of people he does business with. Thats hardly man city oil sheik spending. I know you said no more spurs talk trent but i think its a good example to use. Especially when having to defend yourself against people who keep claiming anyone unhappy with randy just wants a stupidly rich owner to come in. We need to be smarter with our signings, we need to do more to keep hold of our top players. Apart from barry have we really put up a fight to keep them? We need to be able to identify promising talent from lower leagues and we need to have a manager to get the best from all of this. Accepting midtable nothing is not being realisitic imo. We are capable of more and just because randy seems a nice guy shouldn't be an excuse. The club have failed in keeping the fans on board over the last 18 months and their latest attempt at communicating with us is poor and has achieved little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtelower Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Its OK saying "net spend isnt a lot" or "net spend this" and "net spend that" but that doesnt tell the whole story. Hypethetically, lets say in June 2012 we get rid of all the end of contracts for nowt, and buy, lets say, Chris Samba for 10m Lets say, Spurs sell Gareth Bale for 50m to real madrid, and buy 5 world class stars with that money, and then take Gary Cahill for 8m. Net spend would say Villa have spent more. But who has the better squad, the better deals etc.... Net spend is not worth the paper it is written on. Its who you bring in and the quality of your squad what matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super-Villan Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I think cost of current playing squad would be the most interesting measure, because as mentioned above net spend can look a bit odd. For example, the sale of Ronaldo for Man U really skews the figure for them, but the price of the team on the pitch is still incredibly big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 21, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 21, 2011 Agree, Net spend can be misleading. If Fergie had got the £80m for Ronaldo and spent £50m on Heskey, he'd still have aphenomenal net spend. Doesn't mean his business wasn't terrible though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtelower Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Anyway, back to Randy I read the interview, and I accept that it doesn't say a lot. But what I did feel is 1. Randy is here for the long term (I still think he would welcome investment, but has no interest in selling) 2. He still has plans to make us bigger and better (he mentions the North Stand, he mentions playing squad and he mentions that we should be in Europe) 3. Like it or not, he obviously feels McLeish is the right man to take this club forward long term. We have had 4 managers in 18 months. We need a guy who will be here for 4 or 5 yrs at very least - and it seems McLeish has convinced him he is the correct guy. 4. No matter what the grim reapers on here say, he clearly has the clubs best interests at heart and quite frankly, in this day in age, thats all you can ask. I wanted Ancelotti and Wilkins - I also wanted them to bring Lampard, Sturridge and a few others with them. I wanted the North Stand rebuild for this year, and I wanted ST prices to go down. But that lot didn't happen and what we have now is a manager, that love him or hate him - seems to care about our club and not just himself, we have an owner that cannot spend 400m quid every year on talent. But it seems he will spend what we can, and has the trust in the manager to bring in youth players that will make us a better side, and eventually more money, in future, and we have a team that even without playing over the weekend stayed in 8th place. So it isn't all bad is it !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Lerwill Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 A very fair summing up! :-) But again ... let's see what happens by January! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDrums Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The thing is though he mentions stability, how can you possibly expect stability when you appoint your rivals ex manager who has been relegated twice? He contradicts himself here beyond belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtelower Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The thing is though he mentions stability, how can you possibly expect stability when you appoint your rivals ex manager who has been relegated twice? He contradicts himself here beyond belief. Maybe thats what Notts Forest wanted when they appointed a manager who spent 3 yrs at Derby, all but a few months at Brighton, then one month at Leeds. he then spent 17 happy years (I think) at Forest !. Only time will tell - I thought when we signed him, David O'Leary would be Villa manager for the next 15 yrs - look how that turned out !. What went on at the Blues, went on at the Blues, it does NOT mean it will happen here. I seem to remember a certain guy taking the Blues AND the Albion down - din't stop him doing a bad job at the Villa did it !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overdubber Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Well apart from a league title,a League cup and a european cup, what did Saunders actually do for us then? Not much at all really...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 [pedant] Saunders wasn't manager for the European Cup final [/pedant] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overdubber Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 [pedant] Saunders wasn't manager for the European Cup final [/pedant]Yes, I stand corrected... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts