The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 30 June 2011

Benny D · Jun 30, 2011

Guardian says City have denied interest in Nasri.

Arkie · Jun 30, 2011

Jack2 said:
Oh FFS! The top 4 WAS gettable last season with our current squad. Take a look at these games:

Spurs - Wigan 0-1
West Brom - Spurs 1-1
West Ham - Spurs 1-0
Bolton - Spurs 4-2
Spurs - Sunderland 1-1
Birmingham - Spurs 1-1
Blackpool - Spurs 3-1
Wolves - Spurs 3-3
Spurs - West Ham 0-0
Wigan - Spurs 0-0
Spurs - West Brom 2-2
Spurs - Blackpool 1-1

36 point available and we get only 8! If we've got "only" half of the points "available" from these games, which is 18, we would have been 2nd in the Prem with 72 points. And those points should've been gettable with our current squad!

Of course this is only speculation, but anyway IMO we could very well have been in the top 4 and Cl football next season with our current squad and without a "Suggar-Daddy"...but something went terribly wrong in the league! But as I said, this is only speculation and of course Arse, Man Shitty and Chelscum were expected to get more points than they did...

But the point I was trying to make here is that we are very close the top 4 with our current squad and without a "Suggar-Daddy"...but of course we can't lose Modric!!

Oh well, I don't know if I was making a point at all, but because I wrote it and spent some time for it, I'll post it!

post of the day imo

Oshi · Jun 30, 2011

Wonder if Sandro will be a regular for Brazil in the coming tournament, if so he will have hardly any pre-season and may need an extended lay-off at the start of the season. Maybe another reason we are looking at Parker :roll:

sweyid · Jun 30, 2011

Shep said:
Would you say this media source is reliable?

The Fabregas-rumour comes from Swedish state television quoting catalan media (ONA Fm), the Nasri/Clichy rumour from a commercial newspaper who's known to fabricate and exaggerate alot (quoted Sky Sports News I think).

I'd put some trust in news from Swedish state telivision, but not the commercial paper (aftonbladet).

sweyid · Jun 30, 2011

Translation of the story on Fabregas:

Fabregas ready for Barcelona

Cesc Fabregas will be presented as a new signing for Barcelona tomorrow, according to the catalan radio chanel Ona FM.

24 year old Fabregas, who left his youth club Barcelona to play for Arsenal at the age of 16, whose move to Barcelona has been romoured for a long time. According to Ona FM, Arsenal have now accepted a deal for their captain and playmaker worth 310 million kronor (£30m).

But that's not all. Barca are also claimed to have secured a deal with Udinese forward Alexis Sanchez, who scored 12 goals in Serie A last season. The 22 year old chilean will also be presented tomorrow.

tony0379 · Jun 30, 2011

Arkie said:
post of the day imo[/QUO

This

faze_coys · Jun 30, 2011

Arkie said:
post of the day imo

dont agree, it is all IFs and MIGHTS.

what IF we bought a 'sugar-daddy'? (wtf? do you mean a nice shiny striker?)
we MIGHT of won all them games you mentioned
we MIGHT have won the premiership,
shit, we MIGHT of won the champions league.

but wait, we DIDNT.

AFred · Jun 30, 2011

DoublePivot said:
Do we though? Everyone talks about us having some kind of warchest, but if you look at the time that was mentioned, which was kind of that post-January spree when we bought so much just avoid relegation, we've spent very little. And we've spent no more than 9 million on any player

And I believe these are correct, but I could be off a little on some

9 million - Crouch
8 million - Bassong, vdv, Sandro
4 million - Kaboul, Naughton, Walker
2.5 mil - Kranjcar, Pienaar
1.5 mil - Khumalo
free - Friedel, Gallas

So for two summers and winters, plus our current window, we've spent a total of 50 million. We made back about 27 million + addons (10 for bent, 8 for Zoko, 2 for Bentley loan, nearly 2 for Gunter and I'm not sure for Taraabt, 5 for O'Hara)

A 23 million outlay over 5 transfer windows is not very much for a team trying to secure CL consistency. It's less than Villa paid for Bent (which we got some of and may make our outlay less than 20).

It speaks to me of a team that doesn't have much money at all. I know there is rumor about massive bids in January, but since they didn't come off, they don't count. They are no more than paper talk and Chinese whispers. We have no idea if we have a massive amount of money to spend. Considering our current links to freebies, it doesn't seem like we are going to splash the cash. We tried trading players for Cahill. Even the 12 million for Leandro seems to causing issues.

So I wouldn't rule out there being a lot less spending than people seem to think we have right to. Then again we could break the bank on Rossi. But it's doubtful. And I don't think Levy's going to get an 8 million pound superstar at the bell this time around. So I imagine we are going to see a meltdown come September.

I for one have braced myself for a long drought after the financial collapse and don't expect much.

I know this line of thinking is very unpopular and will be ridiculed, but Lewis is the major shareholder in ENIC, and he lost a lot of his fortune due to one of the banks (Lehman maybe) and since that time, we've become very frugal. But I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

:clap: Totally agree.

Why cant people see that financially we are a well run club but we dont really stretch ourselves financially?

Even last summer when we made the Champions League, Mr Levy didnt go nuts and make massive signings. He made sensible signings, and then got lucky and got a bargain in Van der Vaart.

Every transfer window there is a common perception that we have a warchest and are in the lookout to make massive signings. The ITK frenzy, based 99% on wishful thinking and imagination and 1% fact seems to add to this perception.

In reality we end up making mid range signings and the number of signings we make seem to always balanced by our outgoings. The summer of 2008 when did splashed the cash was offset by the sale of Berbatov and Keane.

This summer, the media who in my opinion is more "in the know" than the ITKs have actually have hardly linked us to any massive signings like Rossi, Sanchez, etc.

faulks · Jun 30, 2011

Quite nice that Sky Sports are going on about another clubs best players for once. A welcome break hehe.

mil1lion · Jun 30, 2011

I think that was one of the major reasons Daniel Levy got Harry in. He wanted a manager who wouldn't demand huge money and someone who could get some great deals in the transfer market. Harry was the perfect choice.

Bus-Conductor · Jun 30, 2011

DoublePivot said:
Do we though? Everyone talks about us having some kind of warchest, but if you look at the time that was mentioned, which was kind of that post-January spree when we bought so much just avoid relegation, we've spent very little. And we've spent no more than 9 million on any player

And I believe these are correct, but I could be off a little on some

9 million - Crouch
8 million - Bassong, vdv, Sandro
4 million - Kaboul, Naughton, Walker
2.5 mil - Kranjcar, Pienaar
1.5 mil - Khumalo
free - Friedel, Gallas

So for two summers and winters, plus our current window, we've spent a total of 50 million. We made back about 27 million + addons (10 for bent, 8 for Zoko, 2 for Bentley loan, nearly 2 for Gunter and I'm not sure for Taraabt, 5 for O'Hara)

A 23 million outlay over 5 transfer windows is not very much for a team trying to secure CL consistency. It's less than Villa paid for Bent (which we got some of and may make our outlay less than 20).

It speaks to me of a team that doesn't have much money at all. I know there is rumor about massive bids in January, but since they didn't come off, they don't count. They are no more than paper talk and Chinese whispers. We have no idea if we have a massive amount of money to spend. Considering our current links to freebies, it doesn't seem like we are going to splash the cash. We tried trading players for Cahill. Even the 12 million for Leandro seems to causing issues.

So I wouldn't rule out there being a lot less spending than people seem to think we have right to. Then again we could break the bank on Rossi. But it's doubtful. And I don't think Levy's going to get an 8 million pound superstar at the bell this time around. So I imagine we are going to see a meltdown come September.

I for one have braced myself for a long drought after the financial collapse and don't expect much.

I know this line of thinking is very unpopular and will be ridiculed, but Lewis is the major shareholder in ENIC, and he lost a lot of his fortune due to one of the banks (Lehman maybe) and since that time, we've become very frugal. But I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Excellent post.

I think this almost certainly explains transfers like Palacios.

I said a couple of days ago that I think Leandro may be the closest we come to bringing in an "uber" striker.

I don't believe for one second that Levy was running around on Jan 31 desperately trying to spend 30m. At best he might have tried to pull off another VDV, offering 8-10m for people like Fabiano or Rossi.

MattyP · Jun 30, 2011

Arkie said:
post of the day imo

Shame it's got six shades of fuck all to do with discussing ITK though.

mpickard2087 · Jun 30, 2011

DoublePivot said:
Do we though? Everyone talks about us having some kind of warchest, but if you look at the time that was mentioned, which was kind of that post-January spree when we bought so much just avoid relegation, we've spent very little. And we've spent no more than 9 million on any player

And I believe these are correct, but I could be off a little on some

9 million - Crouch
8 million - Bassong, vdv, Sandro
4 million - Kaboul, Naughton, Walker
2.5 mil - Kranjcar, Pienaar
1.5 mil - Khumalo
free - Friedel, Gallas

So for two summers and winters, plus our current window, we've spent a total of 50 million. We made back about 27 million + addons (10 for bent, 8 for Zoko, 2 for Bentley loan, nearly 2 for Gunter and I'm not sure for Taraabt, 5 for O'Hara)

A 23 million outlay over 5 transfer windows is not very much for a team trying to secure CL consistency. It's less than Villa paid for Bent (which we got some of and may make our outlay less than 20).

It speaks to me of a team that doesn't have much money at all. I know there is rumor about massive bids in January, but since they didn't come off, they don't count. They are no more than paper talk and Chinese whispers. We have no idea if we have a massive amount of money to spend. Considering our current links to freebies, it doesn't seem like we are going to splash the cash. We tried trading players for Cahill. Even the 12 million for Leandro seems to causing issues.

So I wouldn't rule out there being a lot less spending than people seem to think we have right to. Then again we could break the bank on Rossi. But it's doubtful. And I don't think Levy's going to get an 8 million pound superstar at the bell this time around. So I imagine we are going to see a meltdown come September.

I for one have braced myself for a long drought after the financial collapse and don't expect much.

I know this line of thinking is very unpopular and will be ridiculed, but Lewis is the major shareholder in ENIC, and he lost a lot of his fortune due to one of the banks (Lehman maybe) and since that time, we've become very frugal. But I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Exactly right, have said this myself, Us buying £20m+ players is not going to happen and a lot of SC'ers need to realise this or I dread to think what the mood will be like when the transfer window comes to a close.

Top post :clap:

Archie77 · Jun 30, 2011

MattyP said:
Shame it's got six shades of fuck all to do with discussing ITK though.

If we applied that rule, this thread would be one page long today.

That wouldnt be much fun, would it??

kishman · Jun 30, 2011

DoublePivot said:
Do we though? Everyone talks about us having some kind of warchest, but if you look at the time that was mentioned, which was kind of that post-January spree when we bought so much just avoid relegation, we've spent very little. And we've spent no more than 9 million on any player

And I believe these are correct, but I could be off a little on some

9 million - Crouch
8 million - Bassong, vdv, Sandro
4 million - Kaboul, Naughton, Walker
2.5 mil - Kranjcar, Pienaar
1.5 mil - Khumalo
free - Friedel, Gallas

So for two summers and winters, plus our current window, we've spent a total of 50 million. We made back about 27 million + addons (10 for bent, 8 for Zoko, 2 for Bentley loan, nearly 2 for Gunter and I'm not sure for Taraabt, 5 for O'Hara)

A 23 million outlay over 5 transfer windows is not very much for a team trying to secure CL consistency. It's less than Villa paid for Bent (which we got some of and may make our outlay less than 20).

It speaks to me of a team that doesn't have much money at all. I know there is rumor about massive bids in January, but since they didn't come off, they don't count. They are no more than paper talk and Chinese whispers. We have no idea if we have a massive amount of money to spend. Considering our current links to freebies, it doesn't seem like we are going to splash the cash. We tried trading players for Cahill. Even the 12 million for Leandro seems to causing issues.

So I wouldn't rule out there being a lot less spending than people seem to think we have right to. Then again we could break the bank on Rossi. But it's doubtful. And I don't think Levy's going to get an 8 million pound superstar at the bell this time around. So I imagine we are going to see a meltdown come September.

I for one have braced myself for a long drought after the financial collapse and don't expect much.

I know this line of thinking is very unpopular and will be ridiculed, but Lewis is the major shareholder in ENIC, and he lost a lot of his fortune due to one of the banks (Lehman maybe) and since that time, we've become very frugal. But I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

It was Bear Stearns.

Also I wonder if our stadium plans have affected our transfer budget.

Archie77 · Jun 30, 2011

The above post everyone seems to be applauding seems to be ignoring Champions league / premier league / sponsorship income

MattyP · Jun 30, 2011

Archie77 said:
If we applied that rule, this thread would be one page long today.

That wouldnt be much fun, would it??

Probably not, but would make it a hell of a lot easier to ensure any ITK that is identified is recorded in the Read Only thread.

That said, half the players the ITK is about I don't consider to be too much fun either.

Archibald&Crooks · Jun 30, 2011

Archie77 said:
If we applied that rule, this thread would be one page long today.

That wouldnt be much fun, would it??

Fun? You come into the ITK Discussion Thread for FUN?

You pervert :wink:

Graysonti · Jun 30, 2011

Depressing

Wheres the money gone!

Shep · Jun 30, 2011

faze_coys said:
dont agree, it is all IFs and MIGHTS.

what IF we bought a 'sugar-daddy'? (wtf? do you mean a nice shiny striker?)
we MIGHT of won all them games you mentioned
we MIGHT have won the premiership,
shit, we MIGHT of won the champions league.

but wait, we DIDNT.

If we had a striker who could hit a cows arse with a banjo we would have got more than we did.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 30 June 2011

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The bald midget has to go!

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

This is the place to be

SC Supporter

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes

Patient Zero

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes

Aegina Expat

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads