What's new

The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 7th July 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.

THFCSPURS19

The Speaker of the Transfer Rumours Forum
Jan 6, 2013
37,886
130,485
Partly, they're also in the CL next season.
Financially, they are in a similar position, albeit the already have a higher budget and they have CL. But the sale of one player is financing multiple solid transfers, an identical situation to us last summer.
 

SFCS

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2013
598
1,285
They've spent net money over several years though. Just don't know why so many fans are so worried about Enic getting good value for money. If they pay more than they want for a player who is very good, I couldn't give a monkeys as long as the player improves the team.

I do agree with the highlighted bit, although as we saw in buying Eriksen after Willian got kidnapped by the Chavs, second choice can even be better than the first. The trouble we have though is that we're run as a sound business. Liverpool made losses in excess of £70million in the last two seasons they finished below us, swallowing the numerous mistakes they made like they were nothing. We can't do that so it's no surprise that in Levy's eyes the best way for us to have a chance of outdoing the sides who vastly outspend us is to make our money go as far as it can.

What Liverpool did in not allowing their losses to affect their spending was a big risk but one that they're better placed to take than us as they have a far higher turnover. Other clubs have tried to do similar in the not so distant past. Villa gave their best players big contracts to keep them from the bigger clubs but it was unsustainable without CL money and they ended up having to pull the plug on the plan and lost their players after a few years. Newcastle tried to make big signings but wasted money they couldn't afford on duds like Owen. West Ham did similar but on a smaller scale as they tried to establish themselves as a top half team and we all know what happened to Leeds and Portsmouth.

Personally, I'll be disappointed if the ITK about us trimming back the squad again is true(2 out for every 1 in, wasn't it?). Of course we have too many midfielders but by the time we've bought in some new defenders I'd hope that we aren't more than a couple down in terms of the total numbers in our first team. We have a good base for a squad at present, Liverpool, Everton and Arsenal would have struggled far worse if they had at least 2 of their centre backs injured for long periods of the season. We just lack that extra bit of quality those other sides had and weren't helped by the two destructive managers we had last season.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
They've spent net money over several years though. Just don't know why so many fans are so worried about Enic getting good value for money. If they pay more than they want for a player who is very good, I couldn't give a monkeys as long as the player improves the team.

Because they can understand the ramifications and how those ramifications can effect the club we support.

It's not rocket science. Player trading forms a massive part of our profit/loss strategy as a business. We get it too wrong, too often then it's going to impact our ability to compete. And that will have a detrimental effect on us in a footballing sense.

If we were bankrolled by a billionaire with no budgetary restrictions none of us would give a shit.
 

Bill_Oddie

Everything in Moderation
Staff
Feb 1, 2005
19,120
6,003
The point on transfer fee that isn't made enough is how it's broken down. People getting angsty about 12m for Davies might change their mind if the deal was (as Levy would probably insist):

4m up front
2m next summer
1m summer after
1m after 50 games for Spurs
1m after 100 games for Spurs
2m if we qualify for CL in either of the next 2 seasons
1m if we win the title during his time at Spurs

Chances are we wouldn't need to pay all 12m, or only if we were highly successful so we wouldn't care. It's really wages that do us most damage, and Davies would be on naff all, say 30k a week for 4 years, which is 6.2 million in total. Luke Shaw's deal at United will cost them 20.8 million in wages. Not counting any wage rise if he performs well.
 

spurs9

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
11,840
34,012
The point on transfer fee that isn't made enough is how it's broken down. People getting angsty about 12m for Davies might change their mind if the deal was (as Levy would probably insist):

4m up front
2m next summer
1m summer after
1m after 50 games for Spurs
1m after 100 games for Spurs
2m if we qualify for CL in either of the next 2 seasons
1m if we win the title during his time at Spurs

Chances are we wouldn't need to pay all 12m, or only if we were highly successful so we wouldn't care. It's really wages that do us most damage, and Davies would be on naff all, say 30k a week for 4 years, which is 6.2 million in total. Luke Shaw's deal at United will cost them 20.8 million in wages. Not counting any wage rise if he performs well.
What your describing here would be 7m plus add-ons rather than 12m. Usually when deals like this are reported (Soldado being an exception) they will quote the amount that definitely needs to be paid (but not in what installments) followed by "could increase to x amount with add-ons". Although it is debatable how accurate these are reports are anyway.
 

guy

SC Supporter
May 31, 2007
4,507
6,182
What your describing here would be 7m plus add-ons rather than 12m. Usually when deals like this are reported (Soldado being an exception) they will quote the amount that definitely needs to be paid (but not in what installments) followed by "could increase to x amount with add-ons". Although it is debatable how accurate these are reports are anyway.

Well the buying club would report it as 7m, the selling club will say they got 12mill!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top