Daryl Janmaat

[ClubSpinDoctor 0]

 

 

I'm just wondering when turning 29 became old for a footballer? You base your 'good business' statement on his age, yet (confusingly) go on to say he's at the peak of his powers.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

That Villa defender looked a top player in the same team. I don't think it's reasonable to draw that conclusion from a handful of games in a different environment.

 

So what explains it then? How can the Villa defender look good if he isnt?

[ClubSpinDoctor 0]

 

They could be shit journeymen like what Villa are signing. That's what I was getting at. They're good players regardless of what they cost.

 

 

But that's not what your argument was. You were talking about our signings showing ambition. You'd think them shamelessly spelling it out in that fans meeting thing would be enough for it to sink in, they have no ambition, other than to make money.

[Dr Gloom 19808]

 

So are Spurs and Everton.

 

i'm not sure spurs fall under the same category as us. they couldn't turn down the offer for bale - not many clubs could - but they don't run a net spend surplus on transfers like us. neither do they look to sell their players when they don't need to, just to turn a profit.

[ClubSpinDoctor 0]

 

So what explains it then? How can the Villa defender look good if he isnt?

 

Because players can look good in short periods. Maintaining form and consistency is what seperates alright defenders from good ones, and that Holland team dominates games possession wise, their defence was rarely under sustained pressure.

[wolfy 12]

 

it's not an argument. it's a fact. we're a selling club now.

All clubs are selling clubs and all clubs are buying clubs. We sell no more players than any other club.

 

If we are a selling club because of Carroll, Ba, Cabaye and Debuchy....how many of those players did we sell because we didn't want them?

How many did we sell because the player forced the sale?

[ChezGiven 0]

 

i'm not sure spurs fall under the same category as us. they couldn't turn down the offer for bale - not many clubs could - but they don't run a net spend surplus on transfers like us. neither do they look to sell their players when they don't need to, just to turn a profit.

 

Thought they spent less than they earned from Bale? Even if it was bigger, there was not much in it. They sold their best player.

 

Everton brought in some good players last year but had a negative net spend. They also sold their best player.

 

We sold our best player.

[Dr Gloom 19808]

 

 

But that's not what your argument was. You were talking about our signings showing ambition. You'd think them shamelessly spelling it out in that fans meeting thing would be enough for it to sink in, they have no ambition, other than to make money.

 

you're right of course but most of us are aware of this and are simply pleased to see some decent players coming in for once. the owner isn't going to change but at least we might have slightly better times on the pitch to look forward to this season so fuck him.

[ClubSpinDoctor 0]

 

you're right of course but most of us are aware of this and are simply pleased to see some decent players coming in for once. the owner isn't going to change but at least we might have slightly better times on the pitch to look forward to this season so fuck him.

 

 

I agree there appears to be decent signings coming in, but there's proven decent players going out. So who knows if it'll improve?

[Dr Gloom 19808]

 

Thought they spent less than they earned from Bale? Even if it was bigger, there was not much in it. They sold their best player.

 

Everton brought in some good players last year but had a negative net spend. They also sold their best player.

 

We sold our best player.

 

it's a ridiculous offer that next to no club would turn down. man u couldn't turn down real's money when they came in for ronaldo, but they're not a selling club. also, spurs' hand was forced because bale wanted to go. you can argue we're forced to sell debuchy too because he wants out, but it's mad to compare our general approach to transfers over the past few years with that at spurs. in the main, they look to improve their team. ashley's approach is to do good deals as and when it suits us, regardless of how it affects us on the pitch, hence the occasional splurges followed by other windows when key players aren't replaced.

 

i agree with part of what CSD is saying - they've come out and said as much that they don't care about challenging for any honours. that's the main difference between a club like spurs and us. our ambition is to tread water only and to turn a profit on player dealings while doing so.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Dr Gloom

[ChezGiven 0]

 

Because players can look good in short periods. Maintaining form and consistency is what seperates alright defenders from good ones, and that Holland team dominates games possession wise, their defence was rarely under sustained pressure.

 

Well Louis Val Gaal obviously sees it a bit different to you as he can pick a player. If he's good enough for LVG, he's good enough for me.

 

Not for everyone, obviously but there are strong reasons to suggest he is good, namely his performances at a strong world cup, his team being stronger than Debuchy's and his selection by one of the world's best coaches.

 

We have to wait and see but swapping an international right back from France for an international right back from Holland seems like good business to me.

[Dr Gloom 19808]

 

 

I agree there appears to be decent signings coming in, but there's proven decent players going out. So who knows if it'll improve?

 

yeah but it's better at least than last season when decent players went out and no players at all came in other than a loanee we couldn't retain.

 

we're all aware of the bigger picture - more than a few of us were talking ditching season tickets and how following the club had become a chore - but at least we have the potential to see some progress on the pitch next season.

[Toonpack 6844]

i'm not sure spurs fall under the same category as us. they couldn't turn down the offer for bale - not many clubs could - but they don't run a net spend surplus on transfers like us. neither do they look to sell their players when they don't need to, just to turn a profit.

They do and it's a pretty big one. £38 Mill in last 4 years, they're an additional £8Mill up this summer so far.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Toonpack

[ClubSpinDoctor 0]

 

Well Louis Val Gaal obviously sees it a bit different to you as he can pick a player. If he's good enough for LVG, he's good enough for me.

 

Not for everyone, obviously but there are strong reasons to suggest he is good, namely his performances at a strong world cup, his team being stronger than Debuchy's and his selection by one of the world's best coaches.

 

We have to wait and see but swapping an international right back from France for an international right back from Holland seems like good business to me.

 

 

A simplistic view of it, given the strength in depth France have in that position and given that he isn't an auto-starter for the dutch.

[Tom 13836]

Here man - let people enjoy their little positives for fucks sake.

[Howay 12452]

Good replacement for Debuchy, at least we have some decent players to watch as tbh we all knew Debuchy was going to be going.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

 

A simplistic view of it, given the strength in depth France have in that position and given that he isn't an auto-starter for the dutch.

 

No, yours is the simplistic view as its easier to be critical.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Hopefully this fella can clear some off the line.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Christmas Tree

[wolfy 12]

The grass isn't always greener on the other side as we've seen with many a player leaving us. The money is better for them but rarely do they enhance their football careers.

If Debuchy doesn't settle quickly, he could find himself playing second fiddle for his stay at Arsenal.

[Tom 13836]

I think it's important to consider we've been scouting 'Debuchy's Replacement' for a year & this guy was their main target.

[Dr Gloom 19808]

They do and it's a pretty big one. £38 Mill in last 4 years, they're an additional £8Mill up this summer so far.

 

over the last 5 years spurs they have spent more than they recouped. also worth nothing that it would have been more if not for the crazy fee they got for bale. they're a well run club, but the big difference between them and us is they generally look to improve on the field in every transfer window. we sell and buy in patches, motivated mainly about when the deal is best for the club's finances and with little thought as to how it will affect on-field performance. see last two transfer windows.

 

Net transfer spend last 5 seasons:

 

1 Manchester City £479,950,000

2 Chelsea £269,759,000

3 Manchester United £138,750,000

4 Stoke City £91,175,000

5 Liverpool £89,400,000

6 Aston Villa £86,000,000

7 Southampton £60,750,000

8 Hull City £47,775,000

9 Sunderland £46,930,000

10 Cardiff City £40,470,000

11 West Ham £30,550,000

12 Norwich City £21,650,000

13 Swansea £18,745,000

14 West Bromwich Albion £14,726,000

15 Crystal Palace £11,950,000

16 Fulham £10,880,000

17 Tottenham £3,850,000

18 Arsenal -£4,125,000

19 Everton -£12,315,500

20 Newcastle -£45,000,000

 

 

[Kid Dynamite 5902]

Fwiw I'm happy with the signings we've made so far, we still need 2 strikers though.

 

I'm not bumming Ashley about it though as, like I said previously, he's currently around £55mil up over the last 12 months. He's not reaching deep to push the club forward, Williamson is currently our 2nd choice centre half for example

[Tooj 17]

Not that it matters but Debuchy is 29 in a few days. This is very shrewd business based on what I've heard and read.

 

Shame some have to spin (pun intended) everything to portray it as negative as possible.

 

That phrase is everything that's wrong with modern football.

[Park Life 70]

 

Thought they spent less than they earned from Bale? Even if it was bigger, there was not much in it. They sold their best player.

 

Everton brought in some good players last year but had a negative net spend. They also sold their best player.

 

We sold our best player.

Spurs spent 103m after Bale. Mostly on costly shit like Lamela who are 3/4 seasons away from being PL players (30m).

[Park Life 70]

 

it's a ridiculous offer that next to no club would turn down. man u couldn't turn down real's money when they came in for ronaldo, but they're not a selling club. also, spurs' hand was forced because bale wanted to go. you can argue we're forced to sell debuchy too because he wants out, but it's mad to compare our general approach to transfers over the past few years with that at spurs. in the main, they look to improve their team. ashley's approach is to do good deals as and when it suits us, regardless of how it affects us on the pitch, hence the occasional splurges followed by other windows when key players aren't replaced.

 

i agree with part of what CSD is saying - they've come out and said as much that they don't care about challenging for any honours. that's the main difference between a club like spurs and us. our ambition is to tread water only and to turn a profit on player dealings while doing so.

We aren't going to spend the extra 100m. No club outside the top4/5 can. Spurs will have to start cutting back soon as there will be no Bale/Modric money in the short/medium term. They have a huge wage bill as well.