Please Register to access the whole of the site and to post on the forums.
Discussion in 'Spurs Chat' started by Dharmabum, Feb 29, 2016.
And if he says that, that's fine.
There is no way we'll get the expected £40m-£50m for him if he never plays again. He will, he just won't be first choice anymore. He'll play a part, prove his fitness, and be off in the summer, almost certainly to United.
Reading all this stuff though brings it back - I haven't paid any attention to Rose since his outburst - from that moment he'd burnt his bridges and suddenly wasn't a Spurs player anymore to me. But the truth is he's a brilliant left back, probably the best in the league.
If you'd told me at the end of last season that we'd be losing both Walker and Rose, the two best full backs in the league, both first choice for England, and it would all happen in the next 12 months (especially selling them to the two Manchester clubs) I'd have told you that was a complete disaster for the club. I still think it is in many ways - yes Trips is decent and Aurier looks like he could potentially be amazing, yes Davies has stepped up magnificently and played out of his skin - but the fact remains that even if we haven't massively weakened ourselves (and I do think our starting 11 is actually a bit weaker without them both in it), we have, or will, seriously strengthen our two major rivals for the title in their weakest positions.
It's really not ideal for the club at all, and I view the whole situation with both Walker and Rose as a seriously negative period for us, no matter how well we try and manage it with big fees and new signings.
I agree with this, but I don't really see what the club could do differently, i know people will say 'sell abroad' but it's not that simple really, if the player only wants a prem move then the only option is to let them rot and then their value as an asset drops.
It's a sad state of affairs but the power really is all with the players.
I think its as much a case of us becoming accustomed to Davies style more. Yes, he has been on form (that finish was sublime!!) But Rose's dynamism in attack and defence has us playing a different, more fluid way.
The rumours have always been that both of them (at the least Rose) have always wanted to move back up North at some point. If we have managed to get some of their best years out of them, sold them for a huge profit, and bring in players like Aurier and Sessegnon then we really have made the best of a bad situation.
On a side note, if Fulham really are demanding £50m for Sessegnon then it would seem crazy to only sell Rose for £60m ish.
We must refuse to sell to United, no more selling to our rivals because there is no way our rivals will sell to us. Why should it be a one way street?
i think hes taking a leaf out of the Fergie book on man management (see Becks, Staam and Van Nistelroy departures for details). Seemed to work for him.
We did refuse them Dier but when a player had burst his bridges at a club then we have little option but to deal.
I agree, the players themselves have put us in this position, and you just know for a fact they had it planned.
Walker I have no problem with as he stayed quiet and obviously just wanted to move to win things.
Rose on the other hand is a twat who couldn't keep his mouth shut and disrespected every element of the club in doing so, he can do one.
It'll be interesting to see the reception Rose gets on his comeback - any mistakes I think are going to be seriously hounded by the fans.
Same approach Man Utd took when Stam, Beckham and Van Nistlerooy all got too big for their boots and all top players at the time.
Rose hasn't played for a year and judging by the way we dealt with Walker by making a huge profit and bringing in arguably a more capable replacement i was happy
Not with our rivals though, we wanted Sancho, we wanted Martial, their clubs said no. City sold him to Dortmund instead. Mourhino would never sell anyone to us infact, he'd rather stop us from strengthening by outbidding us for our targets like he did at Chelsea.
Rose signed a new 5 year contract last year, so either we sell him abroad or we keep him for the remainder of his contract.
Different circumstances though isn't it? Those teams can actually afford to take a financial hit on players, they either don't play them, ship them off elsewhere for cheap or renew their contacts. What do you think will happen if we run Danny Rose's contract down and he doesn't want to go abroad?
8 and a half months...
If he doesn't want to abroad he will still be available for selection, we can still use him. He came through the youth system and cost us nothing, so there is no desperate need to sell.
He leaves as a 31 year old who's pace is on the decline to play for West Ham or Stoke I imagine.
Thats a very simplistic way of looking at it, his value is peaking, theres every need to sell if he wants to be elsewhere.
If he's not buying into the project anymore and wants out we'll sell, and rightly so.
Being available for selection wouldn't matter a jot if his heart is set on moving elsewhere, the need to sale stems from the fact that the player will want to leave and down to the fact that we're stilling on £50m which will be diminishing every year which can be re-invested back into the squad.
The only problem with that is that United were winning stuff in these periods, whereas we aren't yet. Therefore if City and United were to go ahead and win stuff with Walker and Rose in their team it looks like great judgement on the players' part and others will sit up and take notice. The game absolutely sucks at times.
Having seen Davies perform the way he has done i'm actually much more comfortable about the Rose situation. I'm sure either way all will be resolved next summer.
Separate names with a comma.