Spurs

[GlobalVillan]

7 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don’t know how many penalties have been awarded for fouls on Kane, but they’ve had 6 penalties this season and missed 1.

Of the 5 scored;
1 against Arsenal to make it 1-1 (lost the game 3-1)
1 against Everton to make it 1-0 (won the game 2-0)
1 against Forest to make it 2-0 (won the game 3-1)
1 against Everton to make it 1-0 (drew 1-1)
1 against us to make it 1-2 (lost 2-1)

And not one of them could have been as blatant as the ones not given against them for Brighton.

They may well end up in Europe ahead of us with the points they scammed from that game.

[VillaChris]

5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I understand the analysis here, but I think they'll keep Kane for the last season of this contract and hope that, though they'll be losing him for nothing, his goals get them back to the CL promised land. And who knows, they might! They've been in the top 4 for quite a lot of this season, it's not unthinkable that they could improve by 10-15 points next season. 

Their debt is big, but I don't think it will force them to sell this summer. 

Surely they're just kicking the can down the road? They need loads of reinforcements this summer and already committed 60m to signing Porro and Kuluveski this summer. Not sure how much more they've got on top of that, selling Kane brings in 80m minimum.

Yes they can keep Kane but in last three seasons they've finished 6th, 7th, 4th (with late Arsenal collapse) and either 7th or 8th this season. All those seasons Kane has stayed fit and posted excellent numbers so not like they just need him to score 25-30 and they're certs for CL.

I think they're in a bit of denial now and just delaying Kane will knock them down the league for many years. Sell him now for a short term hit and in 18 months they might have a more well rounded team as Liverpool and Chelsea will surely be much better next season.

It's happened with us with Grealish and completely different scenario when he left as we were still trying to get up the table and finish top half.

[VillaChris]

2 hours ago, GlobalVillan said:

And not one of them could have been as blatant as the ones not given against them for Brighton.

They may well end up in Europe ahead of us with the points they scammed from that game.

Brighton should at least finish above them so that is sporting justice from that game which was a complete disgrace in terms of decisions weighted solely towards one team.

[duke313]

Who is favourite now that Naglesmann turned them down? They’re going to end up spending their summer sorting a manager out, who’ll then have hardly any time to sort the team out before the league starts.

[HanoiVillan]

12 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

Surely they're just kicking the can down the road? They need loads of reinforcements this summer and already committed 60m to signing Porro and Kuluveski this summer. Not sure how much more they've got on top of that, selling Kane brings in 80m minimum.

Yes they can keep Kane but in last three seasons they've finished 6th, 7th, 4th (with late Arsenal collapse) and either 7th or 8th this season. All those seasons Kane has stayed fit and posted excellent numbers so not like they just need him to score 25-30 and they're certs for CL.

I think they're in a bit of denial now and just delaying Kane will knock them down the league for many years. Sell him now for a short term hit and in 18 months they might have a more well rounded team as Liverpool and Chelsea will surely be much better next season.

It's happened with us with Grealish and completely different scenario when he left as we were still trying to get up the table and finish top half.

Well that's the thing, it *is* a completely different scenario. We sold Grealish for ~£100m, and were able to buy three attacking players with that cash. And all we needed to do was move away from the relegation zone, and even then it still took a season and a half and appointing an elite manager to achieve.

If Spurs sell Kane for £80m, they'll need to replace around 30 goal contributions just to stand still - how are they going to do that? Any club with an elite striker will want all of that and more in fee anyway. I guess they could just play Richarlison, but he's madly out of form and has never scored more than 15 in a season. Whichever option they choose is going to be a problem. 

One thing I will say is that people usually say 'kicking the can down the road' as if it's a terrible thing, but sometimes solutions really do come along. Maybe he'll get injured and they'll discover a way of playing without him; maybe it'll all click and he'll start loving life and sign a new contract; maybe some kid will get a chance and prove himself, just like Kane did once. Maybe the horse will sing. 

Edited May 14, 2023 by HanoiVillan

[KAZZAM]

16 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Who is favourite now that Naglesmann turned them down? They’re going to end up spending their summer sorting a manager out, who’ll then have hardly any time to sort the team out before the league starts.

Prolly that Portuguese guy who we was heavily linked with.

Amiron? 

[duke313]

23 minutes ago, KAZZAM said:

Prolly that Portuguese guy who we was heavily linked with.

Amiron? 

I don't think it'll matter who they get, they had two elite managers in Mourinho and Conte and that didn't work. They'll end up with a yes man like Rodgers.

[Zatman]

1 hour ago, duke313 said:

Who is favourite now that Naglesmann turned them down? They’re going to end up spending their summer sorting a manager out, who’ll then have hardly any time to sort the team out before the league starts.

When they sacked Mourinho it took about 2 months to hire Nuno, they havent a clue at times

[VillaChris]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well that's the thing, it *is* a completely different scenario. We sold Grealish for ~£100m, and were able to buy three attacking players with that cash. And all we needed to do was move away from the relegation zone, and even then it still took a season and a half and appointing an elite manager to achieve.

If Spurs sell Kane for £80m, they'll need to replace around 30 goal contributions just to stand still - how are they going to do that? Any club with an elite striker will want all of that and more in fee anyway. I guess they could just play Richarlison, but he's madly out of form and has never scored more than 15 in a season. Whichever option they choose is going to be a problem. 

One thing I will say is that people usually say 'kicking the can down the road' as if it's a terrible thing, but sometimes solutions really do come along. Maybe he'll get injured and they'll discover a way of playing without him; maybe it'll all click and he'll start loving life and sign a new contract; maybe some kid will get a chance and prove himself, just like Kane did once. Maybe the horse will sing. 

Their plan in summer 2021 was to sign Lautaro Martinez if Kane had gone. His weakness is unlike Kane he needs 3-4 serious chances to score (as seen in World cup) but his link up play is decent and goal record in Serie A and CL is pretty good aswell. No idea if he'd be interested in moving to Spurs now when he'll be starting a CL final in a few weeks.

Think Spurs should go for Toney if he dosen't get a significant ban.

[Zhan_Zhuang]

2 hours ago, duke313 said:

Who is favourite now that Naglesmann turned them down? They’re going to end up spending their summer sorting a manager out, who’ll then have hardly any time to sort the team out before the league starts.

Thomas Frank?

[Mantis]

Rodgers at Spurs would be hilarious.

[Keyblade]

17 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

If emery won nothing for us but got champions league for us would we be wierdos for loving emery?

He got them to the 1st ever CL final

His 2016/17 Spurs team was probably the best Spurs side most of their fans can remember. Of course he'd be beloved.

[Jonesy7211]

Apologies if bin dunne anywhere else, but this is too funny not to share. Caution, NSFW, heavy language.

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Jonesy7211

[OutByEaster?]

Income-wise, Spurs could find their advantage gone pretty quickly.

Without Champions league money Spurs will make around £350m.

With Champions league money, increased merit payment for finishing in the top four and some of their new 'sponsorship' deals, there's every chance Newcastle will make more than £300m next season. 

Chelsea will be at about £360m, Arsenal at almost £500m and Liverpool, Man Utd and Man City at a different level again, heck, with Europa conference money, we could be up over £250m.

Spurs have the biggest debt in English football, and revenues that don't give them a significant enough advantage over those that are ahead of them to make up ground, financially, their natural place would be sixth-ish - but that might prove difficult to sustain; AIA aren't paying £40m a year in shirt sponsorship for a team in the upper mid-table and their sponsors might well be seeking better value for their dollar.

It will be difficult for Spurs to sustain their current income levels, TV money, merit payments and sponsorship deals will all be heading downwards and they've gambled on buying a beautiful but expensive stadium at a time when they felt they were a stable bet for the top six and a top four challenger, this year, next year and every year - but the sporting world has changed and they're left holding the bill.

They've got a couple of options - gamble - let's call it the Boehly plan - spend everything you have, right now, in an effort to stay relevant and competitive and hope that extra income follows on further down the road - it's not worked perfectly for Chelsea so far, but that's not to say it's not a good plan. Or, try to balance the books, cling on to what you have and hope you get lucky on the field with a progressive manager and cheaper players that he can develop - the Brighton way. 

Neither of those plans are very Spursy - Levy is not a gambler by nature and stepping back has never been a good idea in this league - so, they're at an impasse, with their best bet probably to try to get the rules of the game changed - it's down to the likes of Mr Purslow and those higher up who want to protect what they have to prevent them doing that.

I think they might be in real trouble and they've got some tough years ahead.

 

[Demitri_C]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Income-wise, Spurs could find their advantage gone pretty quickly.

Without Champions league money Spurs will make around £350m.

With Champions league money, increased merit payment for finishing in the top four and some of their new 'sponsorship' deals, there's every chance Newcastle will make more than £300m next season. 

Chelsea will be at about £360m, Arsenal at almost £500m and Liverpool, Man Utd and Man City at a different level again, heck, with Europa conference money, we could be up over £250m.

Spurs have the biggest debt in English football, and revenues that don't give them a significant enough advantage over those that are ahead of them to make up ground, financially, their natural place would be sixth-ish - but that might prove difficult to sustain; AIA aren't paying £40m a year in shirt sponsorship for a team in the upper mid-table and their sponsors might well be seeking better value for their dollar.

It will be difficult for Spurs to sustain their current income levels, TV money, merit payments and sponsorship deals will all be heading downwards and they've gambled on buying a beautiful but expensive stadium at a time when they felt they were a stable bet for the top six and a top four challenger, this year, next year and every year - but the sporting world has changed and they're left holding the bill.

They've got a couple of options - gamble - let's call it the Boehly plan - spend everything you have, right now, in an effort to stay relevant and competitive and hope that extra income follows on further down the road - it's not worked perfectly for Chelsea so far, but that's not to say it's not a good plan. Or, try to balance the books, cling on to what you have and hope you get lucky on the field with a progressive manager and cheaper players that he can develop - the Brighton way. 

Neither of those plans are very Spursy - Levy is not a gambler by nature and stepping back has never been a good idea in this league - so, they're at an impasse, with their best bet probably to try to get the rules of the game changed - it's down to the likes of Mr Purslow and those higher up who want to protect what they have to prevent them doing that.

I think they might be in real trouble and they've got some tough years ahead.

 

I hope so. A detestable club and fan base.

 

[duke313]

6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Income-wise, Spurs could find their advantage gone pretty quickly.

Without Champions league money Spurs will make around £350m.

With Champions league money, increased merit payment for finishing in the top four and some of their new 'sponsorship' deals, there's every chance Newcastle will make more than £300m next season. 

Chelsea will be at about £360m, Arsenal at almost £500m and Liverpool, Man Utd and Man City at a different level again, heck, with Europa conference money, we could be up over £250m.

Spurs have the biggest debt in English football, and revenues that don't give them a significant enough advantage over those that are ahead of them to make up ground, financially, their natural place would be sixth-ish - but that might prove difficult to sustain; AIA aren't paying £40m a year in shirt sponsorship for a team in the upper mid-table and their sponsors might well be seeking better value for their dollar.

It will be difficult for Spurs to sustain their current income levels, TV money, merit payments and sponsorship deals will all be heading downwards and they've gambled on buying a beautiful but expensive stadium at a time when they felt they were a stable bet for the top six and a top four challenger, this year, next year and every year - but the sporting world has changed and they're left holding the bill.

They've got a couple of options - gamble - let's call it the Boehly plan - spend everything you have, right now, in an effort to stay relevant and competitive and hope that extra income follows on further down the road - it's not worked perfectly for Chelsea so far, but that's not to say it's not a good plan. Or, try to balance the books, cling on to what you have and hope you get lucky on the field with a progressive manager and cheaper players that he can develop - the Brighton way. 

Neither of those plans are very Spursy - Levy is not a gambler by nature and stepping back has never been a good idea in this league - so, they're at an impasse, with their best bet probably to try to get the rules of the game changed - it's down to the likes of Mr Purslow and those higher up who want to protect what they have to prevent them doing that.

I think they might be in real trouble and they've got some tough years ahead.

 

Hopefully back to being a midtable club where they belong

[Keyblade]

37 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Income-wise, Spurs could find their advantage gone pretty quickly.

Without Champions league money Spurs will make around £350m.

With Champions league money, increased merit payment for finishing in the top four and some of their new 'sponsorship' deals, there's every chance Newcastle will make more than £300m next season. 

Chelsea will be at about £360m, Arsenal at almost £500m and Liverpool, Man Utd and Man City at a different level again, heck, with Europa conference money, we could be up over £250m.

Spurs have the biggest debt in English football, and revenues that don't give them a significant enough advantage over those that are ahead of them to make up ground, financially, their natural place would be sixth-ish - but that might prove difficult to sustain; AIA aren't paying £40m a year in shirt sponsorship for a team in the upper mid-table and their sponsors might well be seeking better value for their dollar.

It will be difficult for Spurs to sustain their current income levels, TV money, merit payments and sponsorship deals will all be heading downwards and they've gambled on buying a beautiful but expensive stadium at a time when they felt they were a stable bet for the top six and a top four challenger, this year, next year and every year - but the sporting world has changed and they're left holding the bill.

They've got a couple of options - gamble - let's call it the Boehly plan - spend everything you have, right now, in an effort to stay relevant and competitive and hope that extra income follows on further down the road - it's not worked perfectly for Chelsea so far, but that's not to say it's not a good plan. Or, try to balance the books, cling on to what you have and hope you get lucky on the field with a progressive manager and cheaper players that he can develop - the Brighton way. 

Neither of those plans are very Spursy - Levy is not a gambler by nature and stepping back has never been a good idea in this league - so, they're at an impasse, with their best bet probably to try to get the rules of the game changed - it's down to the likes of Mr Purslow and those higher up who want to protect what they have to prevent them doing that.

I think they might be in real trouble and they've got some tough years ahead.

 

The second plan is actually very Spursy as that's exactly what they did under Poch. Whether or not that was a concerted effort on the part of Levy and not just a happy accident is hard to say.

[bannedfromHandV]

Well I guess re Kane we’ll know on the weekend where his future lies. You’d think he’ll be doing lots of waving to the crowd if he knows he’s had enough.

Interesting move for him next, does he leave the PL and forfeit the chance to break the scoring record? If he stays in the PL who’s going to take him? City don’t need / want him anymore, Chelsea and United both have their challenges and are far from nailed on to be challenging for any major trophies next year. I don’t think Liverpool can afford him and there’s zero chance he’d go to Arsenal (surely).

He’s really kind of shafted himself by not forcing through the move to City when he had the chance, in terms of winning major honours in this country anyway.

[duke313]

20 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Well I guess re Kane we’ll know on the weekend where his future lies. You’d think he’ll be doing lots of waving to the crowd if he knows he’s had enough.

Interesting move for him next, does he leave the PL and forfeit the chance to break the scoring record? If he stays in the PL who’s going to take him? City don’t need / want him anymore, Chelsea and United both have their challenges and are far from nailed on to be challenging for any major trophies next year. I don’t think Liverpool can afford him and there’s zero chance he’d go to Arsenal (surely).

He’s really kind of shafted himself by not forcing through the move to City when he had the chance, in terms of winning major honours in this country anyway.

Poch at Chelsea might convince him they will get back on track. United have won a trophy this season and are in the final of another, they might not challenge City, not many do.

[Guest av1]

45 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Well I guess re Kane we’ll know on the weekend where his future lies. You’d think he’ll be doing lots of waving to the crowd if he knows he’s had enough.

Interesting move for him next, does he leave the PL and forfeit the chance to break the scoring record? If he stays in the PL who’s going to take him? City don’t need / want him anymore, Chelsea and United both have their challenges and are far from nailed on to be challenging for any major trophies next year. I don’t think Liverpool can afford him and there’s zero chance he’d go to Arsenal (surely).

He’s really kind of shafted himself by not forcing through the move to City when he had the chance, in terms of winning major honours in this country anyway.

It’s got UTD written all over it imo.