Gareth Bale

[Univarn]

Sorry, willing to take the negs, but aren't we getting a little "Cech guarantees us 15 points" and the title Gooners on the topic?

Would 100% love to see Bale kit up for Spurs again but nobody can know these things and discussing merit and prospects rather than projecting imaginary scenarios. I genuinely don't think AM is a need for us this window, even if we sell Llorente and Janssen, even though i know we can make it work through different formations. CM and CB is where our budget should go and for me players like Bale, or even Martial, should be on the cards only if a good deal can be struck.

 

[jt hotspur]

Ok granted 12 points maybe exaggerated but my point is us winning games we drew or even lost. Just changes our whole ability to flip games in our favour

And we might even start putting free kicks away again.

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

As I have said before in this thread if money were no object then Bale would be a far easier choice to sya yes to. As it is though we are talking about possibly half our transfer budget for a player with a poor injury record of late. He can only win us games if he is fit and on the pitch, and for 60-70 mil we need whoever we buy to be available for the majority of the season.

I see your point, Trix. However, we could spend the figure you stated on someone with a great history when it comes to remaining fit, then he gets his leg snapped in the first few weeks of the season & we've still got a player who won't be available for the majority of the season.

I don't really know my point. I guess every signing is the exact same gamble, regardless of previous injury concerns? We had no qualms buying Dembele despite his well known hip issues & we didn't really do too badly out of him, did we? And unlike Dembele, I believe most (all) Bale's injury concerns haven't been anything to do with long term issues?

 

[jt hotspur]

No matter wether he will...he wont...we can or cant afford him..wether we need or dont need AM.. this is the best topic on SC. bring him home. Coys

 

[gavspur]

I’m just gonna leave this here in case of emergencies.

 

[PhezTHFC]

As I have said before in this thread if money were no object then Bale would be a far easier choice to sya yes to. As it is though we are talking about possibly half our transfer budget for a player with a poor injury record of late. He can only win us games if he is fit and on the pitch, and for 60-70 mil we need whoever we buy to be available for the majority of the season.

Agree 100% mate

 

[Gbspurs]

The way we play now? I doubt it

I feel we have enough work horses and a lack of match winners. Look at Liverpool, Firminho and Mane do all the running so Salah can mainly concentrate on attacking on the break. Works for them.

 

[Trix]

I see your point, Trix. However, we could spend the figure you stated on someone with a great history when it comes to remaining fit, then he gets his leg snapped in the first few weeks of the season & we've still got a player who won't be available for the majority of the season.

I don't really know my point. I guess every signing is the exact same gamble, regardless of previous injury concerns? We had no qualms buying Dembele despite his well known hip issues & we didn't really do too badly out of him, did we? And unlike Dembele, I believe most (all) Bale's injury concerns haven't been anything to do with long term issues?

You are right but that could happen to Bale just as easily or he could get one of his reoccurring injuries. There is a chance any player could get injured early and miss the majority of the season, but for some the amount of risk is higher than others.

 

[Trix]

I feel we have enough work horses and a lack of match winners. Look at Liverpool, Firminho and Mane do all the running so Salah can mainly concentrate on attacking on the break. Works for them.

Spot on. "Works for them". We play possession based football with a focal point striker, and movement around him. Liverpool do not. what we need is someone to find the front players quickly and make space for them with intelligent passing. It's a clever CM we need not a counter attacking WF because that is how we play the vast majority of our games. If you are suggesting we buy Bale and play like Liverpool that will be no problem at all financially because we might as well sell Kane.

 

[Gbspurs]

Spot on. "Works for them". We play possession based football with a focal point striker, and movement around him. Liverpool do not. what we need is someone to find the front players quickly and make space for them with intelligent passing. It's a clever CM we need not a counter attacking WF because that is how we play the vast majority of our games. If you are suggesting we buy Bale and play like Liverpool that will be no problem at all financially because we might as well sell Kane.

Possession stats would disagree.

https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/ballbesitz/wettbewerb/GB1

I'm not disagreeing that our style presents differently to Liverpool but maybe the fact they get the ball forward quicker is because they have better options than we do. I don't see any reason why we couldn't or shouldn't change that.

 

[Trix]

Possession stats would disagree.

https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/ballbesitz/wettbewerb/GB1

I'm not disagreeing that our style presents differently to Liverpool but maybe the fact they get the ball forward quicker is because they have better options than we do. I don't see any reason why we couldn't or shouldn't change that.

Our set up though is far more akin to City than it is Pool. Getting someone to play a De Bruyne role(which is what we are seriously lacking imo) would be easier than changing the way the front three play.

 

[Spurs' Pipe Dreams]

As I have said before in this thread if money were no object then Bale would be a far easier choice to sya yes to. As it is though we are talking about possibly half our transfer budget for a player with a poor injury record of late. He can only win us games if he is fit and on the pitch, and for 60-70 mil we need whoever we buy to be available for the majority of the season.

Will we have received all the money from RM yet? If there is (for example) 20-40m still outstanding then surely that would affect how much we would have to pay (not total) and will affect our overall budget less.

I would guess that future budgeting has those payments (if any) factored into future revenue or maybe player sales are a separate pot completely as they are prone to fluctuation

 

[Trix]

Will we have received all the money from RM yet? If there is (for example) 20-40m still outstanding then surely that would affect how much we would have to pay (not total) and will affect our overall budget less.

I would guess that future budgeting has those payments (if any) factored into future revenue or maybe player sales are a separate pot completely as they are prone to fluctuation

Doesn't work like that. Any future money incoming is already budgeted and allocated as outgoing. It's not like it's extra money.

I know I'm not explaining it very well, but at least I know what I mean.

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

Will we have received all the money from RM yet? If there is (for example) 20-40m still outstanding then surely that would affect how much we would have to pay (not total) and will affect our overall budget less.

I would guess that future budgeting has those payments (if any) factored into future revenue or maybe player sales are a separate pot completely as they are prone to fluctuation

Doesn't work like that. Any future money incoming is already budgeted and allocated as outgoing. It's not like it's extra money.

I know I'm not explaining it very well, but at least I know what I mean.

@Trix , but did we not 'wipe off' money owed to us by Southampton & Sunderland when we signed Bale & Defoe? And also did we not have millions knocked off the true value of Keane when we re-signed him from Liverpoo because they still owed us after signing him initially ?

I'm struggling to see the difference between those occasions (if I'm right) and what @Spurs' Pipe Dreams asked ?

 

[Trix]

@Trix , but did we not 'wipe off' money owed to us by Southampton & Sunderland when we signed Bale & Defoe? And also did we not have millions knocked off the true value of Keane when we re-signed him from Liverpoo because they still owed us after signing him initially ?

I'm struggling to see the difference between those occasions (if I'm right) and what @Spurs' Pipe Dreams asked ?

Everything is paid in instalments now.

Super simplified....

The £90mil we get for Bale was never £90 mil upfront, so we never had that sat in the bank. We then bought 7 players that Summer some of them in the same way(by instalments). So what money comes in is already earmarked out to pay for those players.

The outgoings balance with the incomings, it's just that it is paid over time instead of one direct hit that's what gives us the net spend.

Like in Keane's case a chunk was knocked off because Pool hadn't finished paying for him, it doesn't make him cheaper it just shifts the difference in the net spend from a previous window to the one we bought him back in.


If we did this with whatever money was owed from Bale it wouldn't make the deal cheaper, or give us more to spend because those previous transfers(the Bale money was marked for) would still need to be paid on time.

 

[CoopsieDeadpool]

Everything is paid in instalments now.

Super simplified....

The £90mil we get for Bale was never £90 mil upfront, so we never had that sat in the bank. We then bought 7 players that Summer some of them in the same way(by instalments). So what money comes in is already earmarked out to pay for those players.

The outgoings balance with the incomings, it's just that it is paid over time instead of one direct hit that's what gives us the net spend.

Like in Keane's case a chunk was knocked off because Pool hadn't finished paying for him, it doesn't make him cheaper it just shifts the difference in the net spend from a previous window to the one we bought him back in.


If we did this with whatever money was owed from Bale it wouldn't make the deal cheaper, or give us more to spend because those previous transfers(the Bale money was marked for) would still need to be paid on time.

Thank you for that

 

[Cochraam]

Spot on. "Works for them". We play possession based football with a focal point striker, and movement around him. Liverpool do not. what we need is someone to find the front players quickly and make space for them with intelligent passing. It's a clever CM we need not a counter attacking WF because that is how we play the vast majority of our games. If you are suggesting we buy Bale and play like Liverpool that will be no problem at all financially because we might as well sell Kane.

This is it for me. What hurt us last year was the inability of our fullbacks and CMs to unsettle a set defense. I like both Trippier and Davies, but neither have the dynamism in dribbling or pace to create something against a set and compact defense. They are both best when they receive the ball with space already. Same with our main CMs - Dier, Dembele, Wanyama, and Sissoko (when he played there). They don't move the ball quickly enough and don't have the range of forward passing to unlock a packed defense. The limitations of these two areas meant all the attacking threat against a set defense had to come from our front 4. Replacing one of our front 4 with Bale doesn't help us as much as getting a more dynamic CM, I think.

I would love to see Bale back, but for me it's the opportunity cost. Would bringing him back mean we can't sign the level of CM or Toby replacement we need? If there's money for him and for upgrading/replacing our CMs and defense, then I'm all for it, but I think other areas are priorities.

 

[worcestersauce]

Everything is paid in instalments now.

Super simplified....

d£90mil we get for Bale was never £90 mil upfront, so we never had that sat in the bank. We then bought 7 players that Summer some of them in the same way(by instalments). So what money comes in is already earmarked out to pay for those players.

The outgoings balance with the incomings, it's just that it is paid over time instead of one direct hit that's what gives us the net spend.

Like in Keane's case a chunk was knocked off because Pool hadn't finished paying for him, it doesn't make him cheaper it just shifts the difference in the net spend from a previous window to the one we bought him back in.


If we did this with whatever money was owed from Bale it wouldn't make the deal cheaper, or give us more to spend because those previous transfers(the Bale money was marked for) would still need to be paid on time.

So if I buy a car on credit and I sell it before I have paid for it the money I still owe has to go to the loan shark before I get the rest to put to another car, like that.

 

[DCSPUR]

Our set up though is far more akin to City than it is Pool. Getting someone to play a De Bruyne role(which is what we are seriously lacking imo) would be easier than changing the way the front three play.

frenkie de jong?

 

[dtxspurs]

Our set up though is far more akin to City than it is Pool. Getting someone to play a De Bruyne role(which is what we are seriously lacking imo) would be easier than changing the way the front three play.

Don't you think one could argue that we've played some of our best games this season in a more Liverpool style? Dortmund @ Wembley, Real Madrid, Liverpool @ Wembley we played by taking pressure and then jumping out quick. I'd say it's way easier sticking Lucas in the lineup than finding a CM that is going to make a huge impact. I guess we'll see who the targets are eventually.