Toonpack

As soon as Colo and Taylor get fucked? Anyone losing both their first choice centre halves simultaneously are going to be in the shit tbh. Well yes, but, other teams do have some cover to limit the damage. As do we, outside Man U and City and possibly Chelsea, who has anything like the quality of their starters to come in though ?? Even the top teams will struggle-ish without a key player or two, they have better quality to come in, granted, but it'd still be a drop off. You can't buy decent quality and them then not expect to play and be happy.

Bollocks that like. Tottenham aren't really a big club, and we're in the toughest economic times since the 80's in the poorest region in England, yet the cheapest ticket was £36! If it was 26 or 30 it'd sell out no bother. Not fussed about the old we're bigger than Spurs argument, fact is we've not broke 47k whether it's expensive tickets against Arsenal or Spurs, or cheap ones against Fulham or Blackburn. I'm sure Alex isn't the only one to have got sick of lining Ashley's pockets, whatever the financial climate.

If it ain't broke.......................................... Seriously, what level of centre half (better than Williamson) are you going to get who'll be happy on the bench for when someone gets injured. I accept STaylor's made some ricks but he's also made some excellent blocks etc. Him and Collo work very well together. I really wouldn't change it, a back four is a unit, often greater than the sum of it's parts.

Not to mention the lack of cash floating around in may pockets

Anyway, Leazes, how big a sin is this alleged "pocketing WHILE owning the club" (not that MA has yet, as far as we know) On a scale of 1-10 of sin-ishness how would you score it. 1 being equal to glancing at your neighbours wife, 10 being equal to shagging her senseless in front of her kids. I'd still also like you to clarify why you think Ibelieve the Halls/Shep should have sold the club for no profit.

It worked for them, no reason it can't work for us

I'm not rejecting the analogy at all. I'm rejecting TP's claim (and it was his) that we are doing EVERYTHING Spurs do. I'm happy to appreciate any similarities in approach, but my initial point (which TP used Spurs to counter) was about players on the pitch. We're bringing in new players every 2 years for just about every position on the park. Understandable during transitions between leagues, but thinking of next steps, either we're going to have to start retaining players longer....or spend bigger on their replacements. EDIT: And by "EVERYTHING", I mean only the 5 things I listed: 1. low wage cap - Not sure what Spurs cap is, but happy to accept if they have one similar to ours It is evdiently "no single player shall earn mroe tha £80K per week", Modric is currently on £40K (as per press reports - Daily Mirror article on Modric's twisting) 2. low transfer fees - Spurs first 11 was built at a cost of more than twice ours. They spend what they can afford nothing more, they are considerably richer than us just now. They made £68 Million in prfots whilst we were losing tens of millions. 3. selling at profit - All clubs want to do that. Agreed, although as a policy we didn't. 4. retaining our best young players - Spurs manage this better than us at the moment See no 2, we haven't been truly tested yet (and I would STILL have taken £35 Mill for Carroll) 5. finishing in the top ten - Ashley yet to manage this. Spurs doing it year on year at the moment. From a self sustaining base These are fundamentally opposed. Spurs couldn't maintain 5 if they stuck with 2. Going round in circles. Spurs spend what they can afford...so do West Brom. That similarity has no relevance on league position. We can spend what we can afford for another decade without improving our position. When you brought up a comparison with Spurs spending within their means, it was to sugest that a team can reach their position by spending within their means. But the difference is £70m+ is currently within their means, and less than £30m is (apparently) within our means. 3 years ago Spurs finished 11th and we were 12th. They pushed on to the Champions League, we got releagted They moved forward with clever investment so now they can afford the team they're maintaining, we sank without trace. Last season we finished 12th again, and we have the opportunity to do now what they did over the last 3 years, like i said though, it needs investment on the pitch. That said...Spurs reported a loss last year. Of course it does, but "within their/our means" does not preclude that, their years of profit generation have assisted their spending now. Assisted, but not covered, Gone from £24m in the black to £79m in the red, even with their profits. A £103m switch in circumstances. The important difference is their borrowing hasn't exceeded their assets as yet. The trend is certainly in that direction. Shepherd was only just coming to that little problem himself when Ashley came along. Even if they have £79 Million liabilities, they still have net assetts of £71 Million it's nowhere near exceeding their assetts, and the "profits" were continued to be made despite the increase in liabilities (until the last complete year and a £6.6 Mill operating loss is inconsequential when you made £30+ mill the year before, I would add in the 6 months to Dec 2010 they made a further profit of £4.2 Mill, what the whole year will show who knows). Of that debt £45 Mill is for their new training complex, they have also spent £61 Mill in property development. From their accounts: The current debt profile continues to reflect the significant property holdings acquired as part of the Northumberland Development Project. These loans are underpinned by specific property assets and planning gains. The Board considers this level of debt to be manageable and in line with capital growth plans.

I'm not rejecting the analogy at all. I'm rejecting TP's claim (and it was his) that we are doing EVERYTHING Spurs do. I'm happy to appreciate any similarities in approach, but my initial point (which TP used Spurs to counter) was about players on the pitch. We're bringing in new players every 2 years for just about every position on the park. Understandable during transitions between leagues, but thinking of next steps, either we're going to have to start retaining players longer....or spend bigger on their replacements. EDIT: And by "EVERYTHING", I mean only the 5 things I listed: 1. low wage cap - Not sure what Spurs cap is, but happy to accept if they have one similar to ours It is evdiently "no single player shall earn mroe tha £80K per week", Modric is currently on £40K (as per press reports - Daily Mirror article on Modric's twisting) 2. low transfer fees - Spurs first 11 was built at a cost of more than twice ours. They spend what they can afford nothing more, they are considerably richer than us just now. They made £68 Million in prfots whilst we were losing tens of millions. 3. selling at profit - All clubs want to do that. Agreed, although as a policy we didn't. 4. retaining our best young players - Spurs manage this better than us at the moment See no 2, we haven't been truly tested yet (and I would STILL have taken £35 Mill for Carroll) 5. finishing in the top ten - Ashley yet to manage this. Spurs doing it year on year at the moment. From a self sustaining base These are fundamentally opposed. Spurs couldn't maintain 5 if they stuck with 2. Going round in circles. Spurs spend what they can afford...so do West Brom. That similarity has no relevance on league position. We can spend what we can afford for another decade without improving our position. When you brought up a comparison with Spurs spending within their means, it was to sugest that a team can reach their position by spending within their means. But the difference is £70m+ is currently within their means, and less than £30m is (apparently) within our means. 3 years ago Spurs finished 11th and we were 12th. They pushed on to the Champions League, we got releagted They moved forward with clever investment so now they can afford the team they're maintaining, we sank without trace. Last season we finished 12th again, and we have the opportunity to do now what they did over the last 3 years, like i said though, it needs investment on the pitch. That said...Spurs reported a loss last year. Of course it does, but "within their/our means" does not preclude that, their years of profit generation have assisted their spending now.

http://swissramble.b...enham%20Hotspur Nowt like it A wee bit further on "with net assets of £71 million, including tangible assets of £124 million" They made a £6 Mill loss I believe last year, their net profits position since 2005 would therefore be £62 Million.

I'm not rejecting the analogy at all. I'm rejecting TP's claim (and it was his) that we are doing EVERYTHING Spurs do. I'm happy to appreciate any similarities in approach, but my initial point (which TP used Spurs to counter) was about players on the pitch. We're bringing in new players every 2 years for just about every position on the park. Understandable during transitions between leagues, but thinking of next steps, either we're going to have to start retaining players longer....or spend bigger on their replacements. EDIT: And by "EVERYTHING", I mean only the 5 things I listed: 1. low wage cap - Not sure what Spurs cap is, but happy to accept if they have one similar to ours It is evdiently "no single player shall earn mroe tha £80K per week", Modric is currently on £40K (as per press reports - Daily Mirror article on Modric's twisting) 2. low transfer fees - Spurs first 11 was built at a cost of more than twice ours. They spend what they can afford nothing more, they are considerably richer than us just now. They made £68 Million in prfots whilst we were losing tens of millions. 3. selling at profit - All clubs want to do that. Agreed, although as a policy we didn't. 4. retaining our best young players - Spurs manage this better than us at the moment See no 2, we haven't been truly tested yet (and I would STILL have taken £35 Mill for Carroll) 5. finishing in the top ten - Ashley yet to manage this. Spurs doing it year on year at the moment. From a self sustaining base These are fundamentally opposed. Spurs couldn't maintain 5 if they stuck with 2.

Simply because what we appear to be doing now, which cannot conceivably work (according to many) is exactly what they have done for years and I would have the temerity to suggest, has in fact "worked". I would have thought a demonstrable real example, of our stated strategy (if carried through) actually working in practice would cause pause for thought on the "it can never work" mindset. But it's not a demonstrable example, because as I said previously Spurs are doing a LOT of things differently. We all hope that at some point in the future we'll start emulating them with investment levels on the pitch in order to take the next step, but it's a pipe dream at the moment, and no indication Ashley has any intention of moving towards it.. We'd need to turn a £30m profit every year for 10 years to clear our debt and be in the picture you paint of Spurs as a debt free club able to spend significantly more without risking their financial status. From little acorns................................. Even they started somewhere and what exactly are they doing differently, I'm struggling with that one tbh Simply because what we appear to be doing now, which cannot conceivably work (according to many) is exactly what they have done for years and I would have the temerity to suggest, has in fact "worked". I would have thought a demonstrable real example, of our stated strategy (if carried through) actually working in practice would cause pause for thought on the "it can never work" mindset. That's my point though, you're comparing Spurs (erroneously imo) to us because Spurs are where you'd like us to be. Barring selling some players at a profit and seeking to introduce a wage cap (hardly a revolutionary set of principles) I'm failing to see the similarities. Also, what is our "stated strategy" exactly? Spurs is NOT where I'd like us to be, we should eclipse Spurs for all the reasons Pud and LM go on and on about. That is not my point at all. My point is simply that there appears a consensus (on here) that living within our means cannot work long term (divining the future) yet Spurs have a record of doing exactly what we appear to be doing and it did/has worked. If even only moderately tapped, our "means" is significantly greater than most, subject to the aggresiveness of the debt reduction. There is no overnight panacea - Brock's post is excellent and highlights the vaguaries of "sport" especally when commenting on Redknapp and how it can all come down to the manager, for every KK/SBR/Redknapp there's a Souness/Allardyce/Gross. We're climbing out of a very deep hole, from little acorns etc etc etc

Exactly how I see it, it's as ridiculous really. The game is already swayed enough by money, why make it more so? Surely a better aim to keep things interesting is to go the other way where there are no real financial advantages amongst teams other than revenue pulled in by fan base or a team's success. I can't imagine anything worse than a league dominated by a couple of teams, it'd be like the SPL. tbh it's like that already and has been for years.

Or put another way, the reality of missing Champions League money has hit home and they're shitting it. Get exposure in front of the vestiges of their foreign fans whilst there's still a bit of "shine on the glory" or risk losing it and join the rest on the outside looking in.

Simply because what we appear to be doing now, which cannot conceivably work (according to many) is exactly what they have done for years and I would have the temerity to suggest, has in fact "worked". I would have thought a demonstrable real example, of our stated strategy (if carried through) actually working in practice would cause pause for thought on the "it can never work" mindset.

and that is exactly what they have been doing for decades The income's today have squewed the picture but the principles remain, success = income, which for some has = more success BUT they've all, for decades, done it "within the bounds of their income" and none of them have what I would call football related debt. Sadly those who were "succesfull" (or on the gravy train) when the money exploded have a disporpotionate advantage and have so far been "locked in" although Liverpool and Arsenal may just be teetering. As for holding their best players, check Arsenal, Nasri gone, Fabregas gone, Van Persie prevaricating. Credit to Spurs for telling Modric to fuck off, but it's going to cost them, and they had his longevity of remaining contract on their side. Even Man U had to put up with the residual contract player power crap with Rooney. As for your direct Spurs question, why don't you look it up and post it for me, I'm forever posting researched facts, you never do.

Maybe we will, over time, becasue all the things we appear to be doing (which cannot conceivably work) thay have done for years. "All the things"? It's difficult to attribute cause and effect when there's so many variables. West Brom have kept costs down, invested in cheap but solid players that can do a job, turned a profit etc. I've not seen anything to indicate we'll push on any more than them. More informative than what you say we're TRYING to emulate about Spurs is what we aren't. We've spent less than £30m on our first 11. They've spent £70m+. We sell players under contract that want to leave (Carroll, Enrique). They keep hold of them (Modric). They market the club to top quality, paying advertisers (attracted primarily by the quality on the pitch rather than any signs plastered on the wall showing "potential") that add to revenue. We cheapen the brand more and more every week with Sports Direct signs replacing those of paying advertisers at an increasing rate. Aye, you're absolutely spot on again. The Spurs comparison only holds up to a (very limited) point. There's arguably a lot more differences than similarities between us and the way in which we're ran. There is, they've been doing it for years, us not so long. The comparison is pretty good IMO, similar revenue's. They've now dug their heels in over Modric, but what about Carrick, Berbatov etc They buy with resale value and have maximised it, fuck all debt, £68 Million in profits over the years from a similar income base. Maybe that's how they've spent more on the team recently, I would guess (as I haven't looked it up) that over the years they've spent less than us and they've had a long standing wage cap (currently max £80K/week if reports are correct).

Absolutley. And that's why I don't think they can pull it off. It's simple enough to have a policy and tell everyone about it. My mates policy is to only have his cock sucked by huge tittied under 25's with perfect skin and legs that don't stop. This policy is rather hindered by him being an ugly twat that no woman in her right mind would go near. My policy is to not take a job for less than £100k and more than 25 hours a week, unfortunately my qualifications mean that adhering to the policy has left me unemployed. Our policies of a low wage cap, low transfer fees, selling at profit, retaining our best young players, and finishing in the top ten are fundamentally opposed to one another. The first 3 take priority over the last 2. I wonder how low our wage bill (and average wage) actually is in comparison to others. I haven't a clue. Modric was twisting because he was only (only !!!!) on £40k/week at Spurs, speaking of which, Spurs have been doing, for years, all the things we have stated is our policy, with some success I would suggest. I thought the quote was "with resale value", that's a much different thing to "profit", although given the way clubs amorticise (sp?) transfers, a profit is often made when a fee's involved, we made just shy of £5 million profit on Enrique. Don't think there's any comparison with spurs. Can't check just now but I'd guess their first team cost at least double ours. But they have no/minimal debt (what they have, was for training centre improvements), have a team (I'll take your word for it, sounds about right) costing twice as much as ours, have had less turnover than us for long periods (according to LM but I haven't checked), yet have turned profits totalling £68 Million (ish - off the top of my head from last time I added it up) since around 2005. How does that work We'll not be able to match them unless we're willing to match their spending on the first 11. It starts and ends there. Maybe we will, over time, becasue all the things we appear to be doing (which cannot conceivably work) thay have done for years.

Bye bye porridge wogs. Don't laugh too soon, you yorkshire pudding niggers (which I assume is also acceptable language) won't last long out there.

Absolutley. And that's why I don't think they can pull it off. It's simple enough to have a policy and tell everyone about it. My mates policy is to only have his cock sucked by huge tittied under 25's with perfect skin and legs that don't stop. This policy is rather hindered by him being an ugly twat that no woman in her right mind would go near. My policy is to not take a job for less than £100k and more than 25 hours a week, unfortunately my qualifications mean that adhering to the policy has left me unemployed. Our policies of a low wage cap, low transfer fees, selling at profit, retaining our best young players, and finishing in the top ten are fundamentally opposed to one another. The first 3 take priority over the last 2. I wonder how low our wage bill (and average wage) actually is in comparison to others. I haven't a clue. Modric was twisting because he was only (only !!!!) on £40k/week at Spurs, speaking of which, Spurs have been doing, for years, all the things we have stated is our policy, with some success I would suggest. I thought the quote was "with resale value", that's a much different thing to "profit", although given the way clubs amorticise (sp?) transfers, a profit is often made when a fee's involved, we made just shy of £5 million profit on Enrique. Don't think there's any comparison with spurs. Can't check just now but I'd guess their first team cost at least double ours. But they have no/minimal debt (what they have, was for training centre improvements), have a team (I'll take your word for it, sounds about right) costing twice as much as ours, have had less turnover than us for long periods (according to LM but I haven't checked), yet have turned profits totalling £68 Million (ish - off the top of my head from last time I added it up) since around 2005. How does that work

Absolutley. And that's why I don't think they can pull it off. It's simple enough to have a policy and tell everyone about it. My mates policy is to only have his cock sucked by huge tittied under 25's with perfect skin and legs that don't stop. This policy is rather hindered by him being an ugly twat that no woman in her right mind would go near. My policy is to not take a job for less than £100k and more than 25 hours a week, unfortunately my qualifications mean that adhering to the policy has left me unemployed. Our policies of a low wage cap, low transfer fees, selling at profit, retaining our best young players, and finishing in the top ten are fundamentally opposed to one another. The first 3 take priority over the last 2. I wonder how low our wage bill (and average wage) actually is in comparison to others. I haven't a clue. Modric was twisting because he was only (only !!!!) on £40k/week at Spurs, speaking of which, Spurs have been doing, for years, all the things we have stated is our policy, with some success I would suggest. I thought the quote was "with resale value", that's a much different thing to "profit", although given the way clubs amorticise (sp?) transfers, a profit is often made when a fee's involved, we made just shy of £5 million profit on Enrique. how many times did Spurs finish above us and better our revenues before your man Ashley bought the club ? I don't expect a reply to this, as usual. Could you confirm the Nolan/Barton answer please. Also clarify why you believe I think Hall/Shep should have sold for what they paid for the club. ?? Gan on.

Absolutley. And that's why I don't think they can pull it off. It's simple enough to have a policy and tell everyone about it. My mates policy is to only have his cock sucked by huge tittied under 25's with perfect skin and legs that don't stop. This policy is rather hindered by him being an ugly twat that no woman in her right mind would go near. My policy is to not take a job for less than £100k and more than 25 hours a week, unfortunately my qualifications mean that adhering to the policy has left me unemployed. Our policies of a low wage cap, low transfer fees, selling at profit, retaining our best young players, and finishing in the top ten are fundamentally opposed to one another. The first 3 take priority over the last 2. I wonder how low our wage bill (and average wage) actually is in comparison to others. I haven't a clue. Modric was twisting because he was only (only !!!!) on £40k/week at Spurs, speaking of which, Spurs have been doing, for years, all the things we have stated is our policy, with some success I would suggest. I thought the quote was "with resale value", that's a much different thing to "profit", although given the way clubs amorticise (sp?) transfers, a profit is often made when a fee's involved, we made just shy of £5 million profit on Enrique.

That's what I believe the policy will be, the whole "buy young with resale value" is based upon making sure when you (the club) are ready to move a player on that there is residual value, NOT simply accept the first profit that comes along. I could be proven wrong, but that's my opinion. Obviously, there are other factors, player power and the draw of Champions league clubs, if you end up with someone who is coveted by one of those, when you are not. Of course there's also the silly money dimension a'la the Carroll. I hope so. But not buying it at the moment. As it stands, selling a young player like Enrique to (non-champions league) Liverpool in the most recent window doesn't suggest it's possible, whether or not it's what they'd like to start doing. Enrique held all the cards though, last year of contract and he fancied a change/wanted away. They can't let that happen going forward. Colo will be an interesting one.

That's what I believe the policy will be, the whole "buy young with resale value" is based upon making sure when you (the club) are ready to move a player on that there is residual value, NOT simply accept the first profit that comes along. I could be proven wrong, but that's my opinion. Obviously, there are other factors, player power and the draw of Champions league clubs, if you end up with someone who is coveted by one of those, when you are not. Of course there's also the silly money dimension a'la the Carroll.

When did I ever say that or even intimate it ??? Please, really, explain that one. No you fucking haven't oh yes I have. You haven't gave us your view of Mike Ashley yet. Presumably you have abstained ? You said you would re-appraise him because you thought he would buy some top players and show ambition, didn't you ? Bet you won't admit that. PS.....buying top players may mean "going into debt" again though, wouldn't it ? This point has been made previously by myself and others. I knew we wouldn't see that cash from Carroll, I also know that we will always carry inferior expectations to what we should while he owns this football club. It's as obvious as the fact that you and others like you, aren't bothering to support the man you think is planning such a good future, having lost interest and attraction since those despicable days when we were buying top footballers and playing in europe and the Champions League. Nope, not necessarily - see Spurs Sorry must have missed the Barton/Nolan answer, was it yes or no ?? Also Would LOVE to know why you think I believe Hall/Shep should have sold for what they paid. If I understand your reasoning I can calrify.

When did I ever say that or even intimate it ??? Please, really, explain that one. No you fucking haven't