Happy Face

Ashley sold them all for more than he paid Carroll more, Enrique same, Barton/Nolan less. But I never mentioned any of those players. CT did and asked if there were any examples other than Carroll of profit made. I provided them. Keep up fella. I'm referring to your underlying narrative, which is as ever unsupported by the facts. "Underlying narrative"? I think you misread the very narrow point I was making in response to CTs query

Ashley sold them all for more than he paid Carroll more, Enrique same, Barton/Nolan less. But I never mentioned any of those players. CT did and asked if there were any examples other than Carroll of profit made. I provided them. Keep up fella.

Ashley sold them all for more than he paid

But apart from....Carroll....Milner....Given....Martins...Bassong.....what have the Romans ever done for us?

That table is meaningless, the spend reflects the wealth of the clubs "within their means" , for the big boys, those with more cash spend more. Leazes has no comprehension what pocket ting means, your attemp to defend him is misplaced he's said on many occasions the money's going into Ashley's back pocket, it simply is not. If someone higher up the pecking order comes in your player will leave. End of. Modric is currently the exception, but he still hasn't signed his new pacification bumper contract. It's all realtive, so wealth doesn't come into it. 15 out of 20 clubs spend more on signing players than they earn from selling them. That's how a club improves, buying "better" players. By not doing so we're in the minority. This goes for clubs across the wealth range, however the shortfall is made up, whether it comes from owners, TV money or other commercial avenues. Arsenal fans don't like their club doing it any more than Leazes likes it from his club.

Bellamy £6m Bentley £15m Santa Cruz £18m Phil Jones £17m And another £10m in smaller deals. Their profit has come from spending nowt comparatively, as opposed to selling particularly well.

Anyone trying to position LM as someone saying no successful club ever sells a good player is avoiding his point. It's clear that this is what he's talking about.... "Pocketing" the cash doesn't mean it being spent in the Casino, it means not going back onto the field. The fact arsenal and Portsmouth "pocket" more means it's not as cut and dry as all that of course....on either side of the argument.

I want kids, mainly to see if i have 'the stare' in me, to put the shits up them.

Sunset Rubdown - Dragons Lair "So this one's for the critics, and their disappointed mothers"

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart) http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time. Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary. IF you're referring to me "only going back 7 years" or being arbitrary implying some agenda driven reason of mine (not). The 7 years stuff is the easy summarised/tabulated stuff to find, beyond that was a bit more of a dig, which I've not dug before. Until you brought up the deeper past (was interested to have a look to see if indeed they did "speculate to accumulate", which apparently they didn't - I would add that loss in 2002 was primarily down to them changing their year end). Bottom line for me is that ALL the succesfull clubs (outside the bankrolled two) do exactly what we are doing now, but have been doing it for years. Not one of them has gone into debt to buy players. The "truth" of how a "big" club operates is exactly the oppsoite to what LM contends. I was referring to the rambler. Don't be so defensive.

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart) http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time. Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary.

FYP

Spurs were spending £13m to £20m gross, season on season ten years ago, at least between 2001 and 2004. Net spend was £5m to £10m. Wondering if that was within their means at that time? Their profits over 7 years are impressive, but if it's a position ten years in the making were they speculating to accumulate in those interim years? Even a decade later, it's cloud cuckoo land that we would spend that kind of money.

The Swiss Ramble gave an updated view on Spurs less than a month ago... In any case, they have done very well to compete at the highest levels without compromising the financial future of the club. Going forward, whether they can manage to address the twin challenges of regularly qualifying for the Champions League and building a new stadium is a whole new ball game. http://swissramble.b...ptimism-or.html

Click on the bit in brackets. Makes sense. Ta

"This is a public poll. Other members will be able to see which options you chose" How do you see who voted for what?

Love the lad, but not a big miss tbh.

Interesting view, when the US facillitate bombings in the streets it's Jason Bourne stylee experts engaged in covert espionage, when Iran facilitate, it's terrorist scum.

Never really worried about weight, but the paunch is starting to hang over the belt. Yesterday I ate a Spaghetti Bolognaise with 3 slices of Garlic Bread, a Big Mac, 3 Ham and Pickle rolls, a bag of crisps, a sweet mince pie, 3 fig rolls, a flake, 2 bananas and 2 tangerines washed down with 2 cans of Stella. Is that a lot compared to other lazy fuckers that do no exercise outside the bedroom? I'm hoping if I take out the Big Mac and The Stella, it's about right for daily intake and I can watch the gut drop off me without starving. I'm 6'4".

It would have to be one of the worst capitulations in Premier League history to end up under 50 points. Couple of snapshots from the table last season at this point and at the end... Pos 6 Bolton Wanderers Pl20 W7 D 8 L5 Pts29 Pos 14 Bolton Wanderers PL38 W12 D10 L16 Pts46 Pos 6 Sunderland Pl21 W7 D9 L5 Pts30 Pos 10 Sunderland Pl38 W12 D11 L15 Pts47 We've got more points than either of those had after 20 games and they went on incredibly poor runs considering the starts they made (17 points from 18 & 17 games respectively), and we have better players than either, so I can't see us getting less than 50 points in even the worst case scenario.

Got it on now, nice to hear some new stuff. Is it easy to do? I've got an account. Aye, piece of piss. Just create a playlist name and you can add any song on there to it by clicking the little down arrow by the song name. I got into using it at Christmas cos you can search on playlists and get hundreds of different ones with Christmas in the title. Great for Halloween and that too.

I have statistical models to account for outliers

As the fixtures worked out, we were 3rd or so after 10 and 11 games and you were having a pop at me for saying it was an easy start. If the fixtures had come out with the games played in November/December being played at the start, in late August to October, then we'd have been 18th when you were making that argument. Would you have been confident of the European push under those circumstances? The latter run of fixtures is every bit as informative about our ability as the former. I say moreso, unless we add a few more players before the window closes. I'm not arguing that we are going to push on for Europe and i dont get or care for your hypothetical point. i'm arguing against using arbitrary samples of matches to predict the future. As you know stats, you'll know that form and injuries creates a dependency on the outcomes of events, with previous events affecting future probabilities. This form effect creates mini-pathways and trends in events across time but the only important one is the long-term one that stretches from match 1 to match 38. Now nothing is certain and those trends can be mis-leading which is why judgement is important. My judgement that 3 wins out of 4 and 60 minutes of the Liverpool match where i thought we were shading the game means we have the resilience and quality in the side to maintain the new trend. I agree completely that Ba / Tiote's absence and no new players (or some leaving) would massively call this into question. I just dont get the emphasis on what is essentially 6 games in your 9 where we pick up 2 points (3 where we werent expected to pick up anything and 3 when we didnt pick up anything where expected for the ONLY TIME THIS SEASON). In the other 3 of your 9 we do as expected. It's all judgement, but my mini pathway is longer than yours. Not a euphemism. Its all about the point of inflection, that one result which sends you on a new trajectory of form. For Sunderland, their defeat to us was meant to have been that sort of result. I think the Bolton game was an inflection point after our poor run of form, even though the Liverpool game was a disappointment. A previous point where our form changes was the away defeat at City, an inevitable result but predictive of the next 6 games unfortunately. Its all swings and roundabouts. The next 3 games will be a good barometer of that.

I meant to vote 53-54 but pressed null by accident.