I get that dropping a lot of unnecessary wages is good for us, but even in a season impacted by covid, we had a wage to turnover ratio of under 50%. I sure hope it wasn't specifically an aim to reduce the bill, because it's not _that_ high compared to how strong we are financially.
The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - DEADLINE DAY 31st August 2021
- Thread starter Archibald&Crooks
- Start date
- Status
nedley
John Duncan's Love Child
- Jul 28, 2006
- 13,972
- 28,108
The majority of it makes sense.
Apart from the striker bit.
So we've shaved the wages considerably, losing 11 goal Bale in the process.
But yet turn our noses up at Ings?
Will prove to be a silly decision imo.
AtoubaToothpaste
Well-Known Member
- May 9, 2021
- 2,285
- 6,125
If we're taking what JJ said at face value, it was Nuno and Paratici (and Levy) who decided he wasn't worth paying for. But you somehow know better than the actual people making the decision.
I have no idea what you are talking about
Think yidboy is referring to the infamous talksport caller
Seoulman
Well-Known Member
- Aug 14, 2004
- 306
- 774
35 is the new 28.
Absolutely, totally agreed.
I suppose my point was more that removing players who aren't needed or are problematic is a great plan, specifically reducing the wage bill feels like a worrying plan.
AtoubaToothpaste
Well-Known Member
- May 9, 2021
- 2,285
- 6,125
That's just it, I don't think the plan at all was simply to reduce the wage bill. If it were, we wouldn't have signed as many players as we did. The reduction of wage bill--what little saving there is now--is likely just a function of buying younger players. We still have to remember that we're carrying a load of debt and only just coming out out of the losses of the pandemic. Any saving over the long-term is surely a good thing, especially as it hasn't hurt our squad numbers.
Tucker
Shitehawk
- Jul 15, 2013
- 31,361
- 146,934
My guess would be golf.
Pauleta01
SC Supporter
- Aug 14, 2008
- 279
- 686
The clamour for Ings is non sensical! His injury record is sketchy at best, he signed a 3 year deal on 150k p/w (with a 1 year extended option apparently) which would take him to 33 years of age. It is not how Spurs should do business - 1/2 of you would be on here in 2 years time lamenting the fact he was on the wage bill when we can not find a suitor to sell him on. Clubs need to build with 4-5 years in mind not for 1 season!
It was decisions like this which saw Spurs move away from its 'DNA' from an approach that allowed them to build a great team out of potential. We should only be signing players under the age of 25-26 IMO, the game has changed, peak years are 23 to 28 due to the speed and physicality of the game. I know people will cite exceptions to this, but Liverpool are a case in point, statistically they are a team in decline with their core all around 30, and the intensity of their play has dropped off considerably in the past 18 months or so.
Spurs were an extremely well run club until the end of the Poch era (coupled with the luck of unearthing Harry Kane), and we need to get back to that. Those lamenting Scarlett as being too young to be a back up, should look at the Brentford model. They take players of 18-20 and put them in a B team and give them 35 games to determine what sort of a player they have, we can expect to produce "one of our own" every 10 years or so if we keep blocking their pathway with expensive ageing signings!
It was decisions like this which saw Spurs move away from its 'DNA' from an approach that allowed them to build a great team out of potential. We should only be signing players under the age of 25-26 IMO, the game has changed, peak years are 23 to 28 due to the speed and physicality of the game. I know people will cite exceptions to this, but Liverpool are a case in point, statistically they are a team in decline with their core all around 30, and the intensity of their play has dropped off considerably in the past 18 months or so.
Spurs were an extremely well run club until the end of the Poch era (coupled with the luck of unearthing Harry Kane), and we need to get back to that. Those lamenting Scarlett as being too young to be a back up, should look at the Brentford model. They take players of 18-20 and put them in a B team and give them 35 games to determine what sort of a player they have, we can expect to produce "one of our own" every 10 years or so if we keep blocking their pathway with expensive ageing signings!
Marty
Audere est farce
- Mar 10, 2005
- 40,189
- 63,959
And he's 28 until he's 29.
Trix
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2004
- 19,511
- 330,451
I normally wait a couple of days before my post window postmortem, because more things have come to light and there is a bit more balance to it. What I am sure of right now is it was 100% DL that pulled the plug on any potential deal for Traore on deadline day. Yesterday morning we were all hearing exactly the same that we were going back in for him. by 2pm it was "no chance he's too much money and will half that price next Summer with one year left."
NYSpur
Well-Known Member
- Jul 22, 2013
- 635
- 2,382
It’s more nuanced than that. I am a huge Bale fan, but Bale only played in 20 games and scored 11 in 6. Many of the goals came once the season was decided. We were 7-5 in games he played more than 45 minutes.
Also, for some reason people keep leaving Dele out of these conversations and he played in only 15 games and just 7 over 45 minutes. It’s almost like an acquisition if he can get back any form. I think we have more goals in Stevie, Lucas, and Bryan, but more importantly our defense should let in less goals.
Last edited:
Fredo
Realist
- Jun 8, 2018
- 3,953
- 18,022
How Nieve of us to just assume Traore will just come to us next year. He'll have way more options probably next year. Sometimes you just got to bite the bullet
wrd
Well-Known Member
- Aug 22, 2014
- 13,603
- 58,005
Will be very interesting to see if we revisit, with a lot of our big moves that fail they seem to be that summer or never. Wanyama I believe is the exception.
sausage
?
- May 17, 2018
- 11,872
- 47,993
But then next summer, people will complain about a variety of factors that he affects.
Football games tend to project the idea that we pay for players 'per window', when they actually accumulate a sort of 'transfer wage'. Ndombele is still technically costing us out of that, for example, and it's a chunk of that £1bn debt calculation. If it doesn't make sense to spend £50m on a player that's going to keep one of Gil/Moura/Son/Bergwijn out of the team unless they are going to be 100% sure.
Russ1201
Well-Known Member
- Aug 8, 2019
- 3,459
- 6,562
Yes he could be cheaper at end of season,but by then if he has a good season the so called big rich clubs will be after him and the cost will sky rocket. Yet again Levy lets us down, why do i keep falling into this trap during transfer window hoping things will change. Nothing will change while Enic are in charge.
-Afri-Coy-
Well-Known Member
- Jun 26, 2012
- 5,854
- 18,619
This should put to bed any lingering questions about whether we scouted him properly or not.
On the Traore thing, I hope we haven’t missed our chance. The more he performs the more suitors he will have next summer. Unless we manage CL, then it’s a different story. Let’s see how things pan out.
Im relatively happy with the window, we could’ve got an extra striker in but otherwise good business for Paratici’s first window.
cookiemonster
Well-Known Member
- Dec 29, 2005
- 2,731
- 5,870
Aurier gone...Baby Oil not coming
Save me the trouble of selling them first thing in FM
Save me the trouble of selling them first thing in FM
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky