LakotaDakota Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 4 hours ago, BOF said: Secondly, the stadium's financial impact on Spurs's ability to buy the right players in the transfer market. They'll be surrounded by clubs who can spend shedloads more than they can. So not only will their transfer activity be hampered financially, it will therefore be hampered numerically. They'll be fighting on all fronts again next season and unless they throw Europe away again like last season then they'll struggle to compete. I don't think that transfer fees are that much of an issue for them but the wage structure is. Most of their players (including Alli/Kane) are only on between £50,000-£100,000 per week and they seem reluctant to break the £100,000 mark for anyone. Sure it's a lot of money for the average person, but if you are a player being offered 70k at spurs or 200k elsewhere it is an easy choice. Kane could move tomorrow and get £300,000 p/w at any other top side and despite clearly enjoying himself at spurs at some point the extra 10 million per year he could be getting elsewhere is going to get very tempting if spurs don't start winning things 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 5 hours ago, BOF said: I didn't even broach the fact Spurs need to keep hold of their better players. I expect this summer to break all spending records, and they're currently sitting on anything from 2 to 4 diamonds. Also, you took me up wrong if you took it to mean Arsenal are the main threat. I was merely pointing out their improved situation. I don't expect City to be anywhere near as crap next season. I would count closer to 7 diamonds. Crucial part for me is the triangle at the back. Keep Lloris, Verthongen and Alderweireld fit and they are guaranteed Top 4. the rest is down to the attacking quality. Kane wont leave and Alli or Eriksen might but cant see both going 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 22, 2017 2 hours ago, LakotaDakota said: I don't think that transfer fees are that much of an issue for them but the wage structure is. Most of their players (including Alli/Kane) are only on between £50,000-£100,000 per week and they seem reluctant to break the £100,000 mark for anyone. Sure it's a lot of money for the average person, but if you are a player being offered 70k at spurs or 200k elsewhere it is an easy choice. Kane could move tomorrow and get £300,000 p/w at any other top side and despite clearly enjoying himself at spurs at some point the extra 10 million per year he could be getting elsewhere is going to get very tempting if spurs don't start winning things City already sniffing around Alli and we know how they love to weaken a rival, even if we weren't a rival for long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 3 hours ago, TrentVilla said: So who are the 'many teams' worse than Spurs that have won the PL? must be a lot who have won the title with less than 86 pts and a far worse goal difference. + 60 goal difference is quite amazing. So they are better than many teams that have won the league. Leicester, Man U last time they won it, Blackburn etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakotaDakota Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 (edited) 11 times the premier league has been won on 86 or less points, Including united in 92/93 when we were second and there were 4 more games then. +60 goal difference is quite rare even for a team winning the league, only happened 3 times Man city were +65 in 13/14 & +64 in 11/12, Chelsea were +71 in 09/10. Nearly every other team who won the league ends up on mid 40's - mid 50's. Edited May 22, 2017 by LakotaDakota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 22, 2017 1 hour ago, PaulC said: must be a lot who have won the title with less than 86 pts and a far worse goal difference. + 60 goal difference is quite amazing. So they are better than many teams that have won the league. Leicester, Man U last time they won it, Blackburn etc I don't think that logic holds. Those sort of stats are as much a reflection on the strength of the league and opposition as they are on league winners themselves. Spurs this season are a better team than Leicester last season. Beyond that I'm struggling to think of a PL winning side they are better than, absolutely no chance they are better than that Blackburn side under Dalglish. There definitely isn't 'many teams' worse than them that have won the PL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 I think the last United team that won the league was one of poorest under Fergie if honest and was a poor league, I dont think City 2 wins were that impressive but again they had better individual talents than Spurs They are better than the Liverpool team that won the Premier League......oh wait 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 11 hours ago, TrentVilla said: I don't think that logic holds. Those sort of stats are as much a reflection on the strength of the league and opposition as they are on league winners themselves. Spurs this season are a better team than Leicester last season. Beyond that I'm struggling to think of a PL winning side they are better than, absolutely no chance they are better than that Blackburn side under Dalglish. There definitely isn't 'many teams' worse than them that have won the PL. We'll have to agree to disagree on that then because I think there are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 23, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, PaulC said: We'll have to agree to disagree on that then because I think there are. You may or may not be right, but the stats you're using don't prove your point. As Trent says, a team's points are as much a reflection on the strength of the league overall as they are on the team that won them. I'm neither agreeing nor disgreeing with you btw. Just pointing out the flaw in the method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Yes it doesn't prove it but its helps my argument a little bit surely. Who can say the Premier League is weaker this year than any other year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 23, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2017 1 minute ago, PaulC said: Yes it doesn't prove it but its helps my argument a little bit surely. Who can say the Premier League is weaker this year than any other year. Prezakly. I don't think anyone can definitively. All I know is this is the best Spurs side in my life time and they're still first loser 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Mine too. The double winning side of 61 is probably their best side ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, BOF said: You may or may not be right, but the stats you're using don't prove your point. As Trent says, a team's points are as much a reflection on the strength of the league overall as they are on the team that won them. I'm neither agreeing nor disgreeing with you btw. Just pointing out the flaw in the method. I think the standard of teams across the league has improved year on year and, thus, it's arguably harder to achieve more points in this era (which is part of the reason Chelsea's win is truely great). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 I think they might struggle to keep some of their better players (due to comparatively low wages) and even their manager over the next two seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 5 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said: I think they might struggle to keep some of their better players (due to comparatively low wages) and even their manager over the next two seasons. I don't think they will (players-wise). They seem pretty happy together - none of them are really primadonnas. Who are the truly big clubs going to go after? Harry Kane, Dele Alli and Hugo Lloris would be my guesses. Of those, I could see Lloris maybe moving... Kane and Alli will stay, though. There might be clubs sniffing around Kyle Walker too, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 23, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: I don't think they will (players-wise). They seem pretty happy together - none of them are really primadonnas. Who are the truly big clubs going to go after? Harry Kane, Dele Alli and Hugo Lloris would be my guesses. Of those, I could see Lloris maybe moving... Kane and Alli will stay, though. There might be clubs sniffing around Kyle Walker too, I guess. Dele Alli is on 50k a week. Jesse Lingard is on twice that. City could offer him 2 or 300k a week. You really think he'd snub that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 1 minute ago, BOF said: Dele Alli is on 50k a week. Jesse Lingard is on twice that. City could offer him 2 or 300k a week. You really think he'd snub that? I think Spurs will give him a substantial pay rise and that Alli isn't the type of Delph/Lingard/Rooney/Terry character that thinks solely about money. He's already been given a couple of new contracts in 2 years to keep him tied down at Spurs - just can't see him kicking off about a move. Of course, only gut feeling - could be entirely wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 19 minutes ago, bobzy said: I don't think they will (players-wise). They seem pretty happy together - none of them are really primadonnas. Who are the truly big clubs going to go after? Harry Kane, Dele Alli and Hugo Lloris would be my guesses. Of those, I could see Lloris maybe moving... Kane and Alli will stay, though. There might be clubs sniffing around Kyle Walker too, I guess. Erkisen is one of the best playmakers in Europe right now, a lot of clubs would want him. They also have two top class centre halves who could play at most clubs. Alderweireld could easily get into the Barca side for example. As BOF pointed out, the salaries are so low at Spurs that it's really a matter of time before these players get bought, unless Spurs change their salary structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakotaDakota Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 Defoe going to Bournemouth will be on more than Alli & Eriksen combined :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 The wages Spurs give out are actually pretty insulting Eriksen was on 20k until this year 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts