JD's injury

[sloth]

Most media I saw about it said in the region of £10m. The Reading boss himself said they made three bids for him, so they had big interest in him. Given what we paid for him it can't have been far off that figure.

Be interesting to see if we accept the same bid for him this summer (if it's forthcoming), in which case our refusal will have been because of our lack of strikers now, rather than our belief in the player.

 

[sloth]

I'd stand by it too. It doesn't contradict anything I'm saying. They are not the only players I wouldn't have bought either. And there are some in between that I didn't or don't rate but understand the logic of buying them.

Finding value for value sake isn't what I said. It's just one of the fundamental principles we must adhere to. We will all have our opinions on players, from Dempsey to Modric to Bent to Bentley to Pav to Defoe.

But it emphasises my point about value, because buying a dud is bad enough, buying a bad value dud is the biggest mistake you can make for a club like us who are dependent on good transfer dealings for a major source revenue.

I wonder how often - if at all - DL has bought a player not for what he will add to our squad, but primarily as an investment?

 

[Bus-Conductor]

But how would you define those two terms?

Sometimes it's overtly obvious and sometimes it's purely subjective. I accept the subjectivity of opinion on footballers. You possibly think Modric was a good value dud. I don't. Some would argue that Keane was purchased to fill an immediate need, personally I think that money could have spent better, benefitted the team short term and still had some long term value (both in a footballing and financial sense). Same Defoe. Especially if you combine the deals/wages involved on both.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I wonder how often - if at all - DL has bought a player not for what he will add to our squad, but primarily as an investment?

Good question. Would hope not, it would be a dangerous game.

 

[jonathanhotspur]

Sometimes it's overtly obvious and sometimes it's purely subjective. I accept the subjectivity of opinion on footballers. You possibly think Modric was a good value dud. I don't. Some would argue that Keane was purchased to fill an immediate need, personally I think that money could have spent better, benefitted the team short term and still had some long term value (both in a footballing and financial sense). Same Defoe. Especially if you combine the deals/wages involved on both.

I do not understand. Can you define these two terms for me?

I wonder how often - if at all - DL has bought a player not for what he will add to our squad, but primarily as an investment?

Any player in particular spring to mind, sloth?

 

[Spursidol]

I do not understand. Can you define these two terms for me?

Any player in particular spring to mind, sloth?

Colloquially a 'dud ' could be termed as one who does not have the greatest footballing skills (but other definitions could apply). So as an example, Dempsey does not have the greatest footballing skills - versus other better players (IMO - and football is a game of opinion). However he could have a decent value given his goalscoring history.

The term 'value' is very interesting - in its most easy to understand sense it maybe a player on wages lower than his peer group and/or whose club is willing to sell at a price perceived to be lower than the market price. One example could be Carrrick when bought by Aarnesen - nobody else was prepared to pay much for a talented footballer. However everyone saw the value when he was sold tio ManU 2 years later. At the opposite extreme VDV (a high profile player on high wages) was allowed to leave his club, Real Madrid, at a low transfer price (evidenced by the goalscoring for Spurs subsequently and Spurs sold him on for no losss) = good value,

Levy now intrinsically understands these terms and therefore makes relatiively (versus other managers) few mistakes - howver the Bentley purchase (ticked many boxes - young, good training at Arsenal, touted as the next Beckham,technically good etc) wanted desperately by the DOF/manager at the time (Ramos) showed how easily things can go wrong. Equally Huttton and Gomes - all 3 were at the top or even higher than their realistic 'values', which is why Levy now worries about DoF's and carries out some negotiatiions himself to lessen the chances of buying pooor value players - as BC says if you biya lot of poor value players yoiu go bust so it is important.

So was Bentley a dud - in many ways not, However IMO in terms of Bentley's mental desire to progress maybev the asnswer is a big 'yes'. Was Gomes a dud - mostly no in tertms of skills - poor value because of the amount paid for a non world class GK, probably yes (ie would other clubs pay a similar/higher price). But everyone may view a purchase slightly differently

Suggest you review other purchases to decide your own views.

But btw, if you disagreee vwith Levy's view (like many)....you may well have it wrong.

 

[Spurger King]

Colloquially a 'dud ' could be termed as one who does not have the greatest footballing skills (but other definitions could apply). So as an example, Dempsey does not have the greatest footballing skills - versus other better players (IMO - and football is a game of opinion). However he could have a decent value given his goalscoring history.

The term 'value' is very interesting - in its most easy to understand sense it maybe a player on wages lower than his peer group and/or whose club is willing to sell at a price perceived to be lower than the market price. One example could be Carrrick when bought by Aarnesen - nobody else was prepared to pay much for a talented footballer. However everyone saw the value when he was sold tio ManU 2 years later. At the opposite extreme VDV (a high profile player on high wages) was allowed to leave his club, Real Madrid, at a low transfer price (evidenced by the goalscoring for Spurs subsequently and Spurs sold him on for no losss) = good value,

Levy now intrinsically understands these terms and therefore makes relatiively (versus other managers) few mistakes - howver the Bentley purchase (ticked many boxes - young, good training at Arsenal, touted as the next Beckham,technically good etc) wanted desperately by the DOF/manager at the time (Ramos) showed how easily things can go wrong. Equally Huttton and Gomes - all 3 were at the top or even higher than their realistic 'values', which is why Levy now worries about DoF's and carries out some negotiatiions himself to lessen the chances of buying pooor value players - as BC says if you biya lot of poor value players yoiu go bust so it is important.

So was Bentley a dud - in many ways not, However IMO in terms of Bentley's mental desire to progress maybev the asnswer is a big 'yes'. Was Gomes a dud - mostly no in tertms of skills - poor value because of the amount paid for a non world class GK, probably yes (ie would other clubs pay a similar/higher price). But everyone may view a purchase slightly differently

Suggest you review other purchases to decide your own views.

But btw, if you disagreee vwith Levy's view (like many)....you may well have it wrong.

Bentley certainly was a dud. We had Lennon and absolutely no pressing need for another RM - especially not for that sort of money. It was Levy's single biggest mistake, and many people said so at the time. He didn't do anywhere near enough at Blackburn to command that sort of price. Giving him such a long contract on such high wages was a poor error of judgement that hopefully he's learned from.

 

[jonathanhotspur]

Colloquially a 'dud ' could be termed as one who does not have the greatest footballing skills (but other definitions could apply). So as an example, Dempsey does not have the greatest footballing skills - versus other better players (IMO - and football is a game of opinion). However he could have a decent value given his goalscoring history.

The term 'value' is very interesting - in its most easy to understand sense it maybe a player on wages lower than his peer group and/or whose club is willing to sell at a price perceived to be lower than the market price. One example could be Carrrick when bought by Aarnesen - nobody else was prepared to pay much for a talented footballer. However everyone saw the value when he was sold tio ManU 2 years later. At the opposite extreme VDV (a high profile player on high wages) was allowed to leave his club, Real Madrid, at a low transfer price (evidenced by the goalscoring for Spurs subsequently and Spurs sold him on for no losss) = good value,

Levy now intrinsically understands these terms and therefore makes relatiively (versus other managers) few mistakes - howver the Bentley purchase (ticked many boxes - young, good training at Arsenal, touted as the next Beckham,technically good etc) wanted desperately by the DOF/manager at the time (Ramos) showed how easily things can go wrong. Equally Huttton and Gomes - all 3 were at the top or even higher than their realistic 'values', which is why Levy now worries about DoF's and carries out some negotiatiions himself to lessen the chances of buying pooor value players - as BC says if you biya lot of poor value players yoiu go bust so it is important.

So was Bentley a dud - in many ways not, However IMO in terms of Bentley's mental desire to progress maybev the asnswer is a big 'yes'. Was Gomes a dud - mostly no in tertms of skills - poor value because of the amount paid for a non world class GK, probably yes (ie would other clubs pay a similar/higher price). But everyone may view a purchase slightly differently

Suggest you review other purchases to decide your own views.

But btw, if you disagreee vwith Levy's view (like many)....you may well have it wrong.

So a poor value dud is one you can only shift at a loss?

 

[14/04/91]

Sky Sports saying minimum 3 weeks out for JD

 

[steve]

Sky Sports saying minimum 3 weeks out for JD

Yeah on the yellow ticker..."ruled out for up to three weeks with ankle ligament damage".

 

[Mr Pink]

Good question. Would hope not, it would be a dangerous game.

But surely the two are inherently connected? The success of the 'investment' will be largely dependent on the performance on the pitch.

Understand the question though, you could still buy someone who produces and increases in value even if its to the detriment of the side or they don't quite fit.

 

[sloth]

But surely the two are inherently connected? The success of the 'investment' will be largely dependent on the performance on the pitch.

Understand the question though, you could still buy someone who produces and increases in value even if its to the detriment of the side or they don't quite fit.

I'm not sure the query requires a "detriment to the side" clause. I suppose if you know you'll make a profit on a player, such as when we bought Pienaar, you might buy him anyway, even if you're not sure what you'd do with him, because you never know, he might work-out, and if he doesn't you haven't lost anything.

 

[chrissivad]

Yeah on the yellow ticker..."ruled out for up to three weeks with ankle ligament damage".

uoto 3 weeks sounds more encouraging
He would be a great option on the bench for the run in if Ade can take his chance now

 

[Mr Pink]

I'm not sure the query requires a "detriment to the side" clause. I suppose if you know you'll make a profit on a player, such as when we bought Pienaar, you might buy him anyway, even if you're not sure what you'd do with him, because you never know, he might work-out, and if he doesn't you haven't lost anything.

Pienaar is a good example given his form was good with Everton for so long and we bought him for a low fee, so I agree there was very little risk. But at the same time I'm sure Levy was hoping he would of performed better/or it worked out better....got even more value from him in terms of the playing side and what we paid - and then ultimately a bigger rise in his value. But it certainly didn't do us any harm.

I think its something that might creep up now and again when there is an obvious situation to take advantage of, but I certainly don't think its a fundamental premise with regards to our approach to the market. That's more the Lennon's of this world, young and talented.

 

[Spursidol]

Bentley certainly was a dud. We had Lennon and absolutely no pressing need for another RM - especially not for that sort of money. It was Levy's single biggest mistake, and many people said so at the time. He didn't do anywhere near enough at Blackburn to command that sort of price. Giving him such a long contract on such high wages was a poor error of judgement that hopefully he's learned from.

Think the problem was that he had a manager and DOF (Ramos and Commoli) who had agreed they wanted a more 'technically better side' and speed was not essential. On that basis, Bentley (at the time) looked like being technicvally very good whereas Lennon's crossing ability etc was not that great.

At the time Bentley ticked most of Levy's boxes (young, English, 'bound to improve', likely to be with Spurs for 5 years or sold for a good price etc). I suspect Levy knew he was paying a 'full price' for Bentley, but he was prepared to do that for a player his then manager wanted.

However, aside from Bentley not improving, the situation changed with Ramos proving not to be a good manager at Spurs, and Ramos/Commoli leaving and Redknapp arriving. Redknapp was less interested in technical ability and more liking speed (plus Lennon definitely improved his crossing etc at that time).

IMO, the real error was that the premis that speed was not important versus technical ability was wrong (ie Ramos/Commoliu error) and therefore Spurs should not have been pursuing Bentley anyway (which may have contributed to Levy concluding that Commoli was not a DOF that Levy could trust).

I suspect that to protect himself from that situation, Levy's criteria to buy a player has been refined and is now much more detailed in the desireable attrributes and he takes second opinions rather than just taking his manager's word that a particular player is ideal for Spurs. So now a player must suit both a manager's criteria and Levy's.

 

[Spursidol]

So a poor value dud is one you can only shift at a loss?

Probably, But it maybe that he simply stays on your payroll for a long time without you wanting to use him much (maybe Htoon would be an example)

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Pienaar is a good example given his form was good with Everton for so long and we bought him for a low fee, so I agree there was very little risk. But at the same time I'm sure Levy was hoping he would of performed better/or it worked out better....got even more value from him in terms of the playing side and what we paid - and then ultimately a bigger rise in his value. But it certainly didn't do us any harm.

I think its something that might creep up now and again when there is an obvious situation to take advantage of, but I certainly don't think its a fundamental premise with regards to our approach to the market. That's more the Lennon's of this world, young and talented.

Indeed Mr P. Many of us would argue that if he'd been used more often - which many of us believe he could/should have been - we could have sold him for even more money than we did.

 

[Spursidol]

Good question. Would hope not, it would be a dangerous game.

Think he's astute enough to try to combine the two.

as an example - was YP Lee bought solely as a full back, or did Levy take into account that it opened up Spurs to the Korean market.

(and did Man U view Park in that kind of way too - ie that its a sensible way to do business)

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Think he's astute enough to try to combine the two.

as an example - was YP Lee bought solely as a full back, or did Levy take into account that it opened up Spurs to the Korean market.

(and did Man U view Park in that kind of way too - ie that its a sensible way to do business)

I happen to hold Lee in very high regard so believe he was very much bought for footballing reasons first and foremost. Maybe Toda would be a better example. Lee had shone in a world cup, played CL semis and won the title in Holland I believe.

Park also was a very good player who played a lot of games for one of the best sides in this country. The marketing may be a bonus but I don't believe it was a cynical marketing only deal.

But if we wanted "marketing" players, then we'd be signing asian players every window. We don't.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

But surely the two are inherently connected? The success of the 'investment' will be largely dependent on the performance on the pitch.

This is the most salient point though isn't it. You're investment is normally only going to rise exponentially in value with good performances on the pitch. Be foolish to buy a player and think you can tuck him away for a year or two in the reserves and then make money on him.