comment by Redinthehead - At least we didnt finish 13th! (U1860)
posted 58 seconds ago
So fifth highest spend by your reckoning, in terms of actual £ amounts it may be quite low..

Rodgers has basically added Sakho, Allen, Coutinho and Sturridge to the squad.

All very good players..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe you had lost something like £50m in the last 2 seasons (I genuinely can't remember the exact figures, they were all in another thread, maybe yesterday)

I wasn't specifically talking about this season, more, in general. Liverpool are a big club, and in general, everything associated with them is big, and that is the reason I don't agree with it being 'romantic', because, as far as I'm concerned, you're back where you belong, fighting for the league (though I wish United we're not shíte this season, it'd have been a lot more interesting!)

"True enough ARE, if anyone can show themselves saying Liverpool have a massive advantage at the start of the season please step forward!"

Yep, I did.

I actually said it about Newcastle and Liverpool. I look for season long bets, and historically, teams that qualify for Europe seem to struggle a bit the following season - for obvious reasons.

However, this isn't true of teams that are regularly in Europe, like United, Chelsea etc.

I'd say that Liverpool's situation this year has helped them a little, but the main reason for their rise has to be down to Rodgers.

Credit where credit is due - this season is an awesome achievement on Liverpool's behalf.

comment by Transalpinotrails (U7475)
posted 14 minutes ago
Spurs spent over £100m this season so why are'nt they sitting up top?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

When will people understand the difference between gross and net?

Winston, Newcastle are generally a good example of Europa taking it's toll on small squads, as are Swansea.

As you say though, credit where it's due. I dislike Rodgers for no logical reason, but he's done very well, no doubt!

I know you said it was because of '7th going to the top' but in this case, I don't believe you can separate the 2.

------------------

I didn't say anything. The article said it.

There's nothing romantic about it for me. We've massively underachieved the last few seasons, we should be challenging for top 4. That we're in with a chance with 4 games to go is amazing, a title challenge was beyond my expectations this seasons

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Transalpinotrails (U7475)
posted 14 minutes ago
Spurs spent over £100m this season so why are'nt they sitting up top?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

When will people understand the difference between gross and net?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand the difference between gross and net perfectly.

Tottenham spent over £100,000,000 on players. Are the players they bought good enough?

Tottenham spent over £100,000,000 on players. Are the players they bought good enough?
_____________
I remember at the start of the season there was a spurs fan telling me that the players they had brought in where of a better quality than liverpools. Paulinho was a top player, Soldado a better finisher than anything we had and that they would finish above us again!

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I remember at the start of the season there was a spurs fan telling me that the players they had brought in where of a better quality than liverpools. Paulinho was a top player, Soldado a better finisher than anything we had and that they would finish above us again!



Although that was not me who said those things, Paulinho was Brazil's first choice in midfield & Soldado was scoring for fun in Spain.

It is unfortunate in that we bought TOO many players at once. Integration & settling in a different league was always going to be difficult.

It is remarkable we were ever in touch with a top four place, considering we have never really been convincing in the vast majority of our matches.
I think would the right manager & approach we could do much better next season, but that means we need to appoint the right person.

Our net spend in the past 10 months has been around £6m.......................................

comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)<br abp="252">posted 3 minutes ago<br abp="253">comment by Transalpinotrails (U7475)<br abp="254">posted 14 minutes ago<br abp="255">Spurs spent over £100m this season so why are'nt they sitting up top?<br abp="256">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br abp="257"><br abp="258">When will people understand the difference between gross and net?<br abp="259">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br abp="260">I understand the difference between gross and net perfectly.<br abp="261"><br abp="262">Tottenham spent over £100,000,000 on players. Are the players they bought good enough?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

But they lost £85 million of talent, so an improvement of £15 million.

If you understand it perfectly, surely that is a rather simple calculation to make.

Genius Greaves & the Soon to be Goal Machine Soldado! (U1302)

I think Spurs' 'bad' season has been exaggerated. In terms of spend, you're not really far off where you can expect to be.

I'm also very interested to see how these players settle next season.

Chadli seems to be getting there, and I suspect Lamela is off for weight training at the moment.

The big criticism for me is spending all of the money on players that have never played PL football. It was a remarkable gamble, especially Soldado - at 28?

Winston. "But they lost £85 million of talent, so an improvement of £15 million.

If you understand it perfectly, surely that is a rather simple calculation to make."

Very good, but as you said it is a rather simple calculation. It is also a pointless one, as I fail to see how it answers in any way the incredibly simple question being asked :

Are the players that Tottenham paid over a hundred million pounds for good enough?

It's a Yes or No question.

I love how net spend is now something worth thinking about, but when Rafa was here it was just an excuse we used.

comment by Igor Biscan's Missing Goal Celebration (U15416)
posted 2 minutes ago
I love how net spend is now something worth thinking about, but when Rafa was here it was just an excuse we used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cracks me up.





I am man enough to say Liverpool messed up buying Andy Carroll for instance. I don't care WHERE the £35 million came from, we should never have paid that much, he was not worth it. It happens. I don't care if his "net cost" was -£15 million.

Why can't other fans admit "their" club are not infallible?

Are the players tottenham bought worth over £100,000,000.00 ? ARETHEY BALLS! Surely that wouldn't hurt too much would it Winston?

Be A Grizzly (U2206)

Except that's not what you asked, is it. The question you asked was this:

"Spurs spent over £100m this season so why are'nt they sitting up top?"

My answer, therefore, would be that perhaps they're not 'sitting up top' because whilst they spent £100 million, they sold £85 million, and the gross spend is misleading.

Of course, this isn't to suggest that Liverpool's rise is down to money, and nor is it to suggest that Tottenham haven't made mistakes in this spending, but it addresses the fact that I felt your question missed out a rather key point - that being their sales.

"Surely that wouldn't hurt too much would it Winston?"

As I have explained above, that was not remotely the point I was making.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 seconds ago
Be A Grizzly (U2206)

Except that's not what you asked, is it. The question you asked was this:

"Spurs spent over £100m this season so why are'nt they sitting up top?"

My answer, therefore, would be that perhaps they're not 'sitting up top' because whilst they spent £100 million, they sold £85 million, and the gross spend is misleading.

Of course, this isn't to suggest that Liverpool's rise is down to money, and nor is it to suggest that Tottenham haven't made mistakes in this spending, but it addresses the fact that I felt your question missed out a rather key point - that being their sales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a question from Transalpinotrails.

My first comment on here 1 1/2 hours ago was :

"I understand the difference between gross and net perfectly.

Tottenham spent over £100,000,000 on players. Are the players they bought good enough?"

It's still my question, still unanswered.

6 Tottenham 34 0 60
7 Man Utd 33 18 57
8 Southampton 34 5 48
9 Newcastle 34 -14 46
10 Stoke 34 -10 43
11 Crystal Palace 34 -14 40
12 West Ham 34 -9 37
13 Hull 33 -6 36
14 Aston Villa 33 -14 34
15 Swansea 34 -5 33
16 West Brom 33 -11 33
17 Norwich 34 -27 32
18 Fulham 34 -40 30
19 Cardiff 34 -34 29
20 Sunderland 33 -25 26

Better watch out for this lot next year then!

Be A Grizzly (U2206)

Fair point.

However, you were responding to my post, which was a response to that question.

So I'm not entirely sure why you are asking a question that's unrelated to the point I was making.

winston, Transalpinotrails asked you "Spurs spent over £100m this season so why are'nt they sitting up top?"

You responded "When will people understand the difference between gross and net?" (which doesn't answer the question that was asked very well IMO)

I posted "I understand the difference between gross and net perfectly. Tottenham spent over £100,000,000 on players. Are the players they bought good enough?"

Now you say that I am "asking a question that's unrelated to the point I was making." Is there a point you are ,making? Weren't you supposed to answer a question?

Tottenham spent over £100,000,000 on players. Are the players they bought good enough?"

It's still my question, still unanswered.

Be A Grizzly (U2206)

Yes, the point I was making is that whilst they spent £100 million, they sold £85 million worth of player, so taking the £100 million figure in isolation is misleading.

I have explained that to you already.

Please do let me know if something remains unclear.

Please also explain why you're asking me a question that seemingly has no relevance to my point.

I'm pretty sure they are paying the multitude of players they bought more in total than they were Bale.

Also, they spent 100m, and spent it poorly.

"I'm pretty sure they are paying the multitude of players they bought more in total than they were Bale."

Not sure what you mean by this?

Re: spending it poorly - I never said differently.

The big criticism for me is spending all of the money on players that have never played PL football. It was a remarkable gamble, especially Soldado - at 28?

As opposed to United wasting £28m on a player who has played in the PL?

I am man enough to say Liverpool messed up buying Andy Carroll for instance. I don't care WHERE the £35 million came from, we should never have paid that much, he was not worth it. It happens. I don't care if his "net cost" was -£15 million.

---------------------------

Grizzly, you're forgetting that we sold him for £17m, which makes it.....by may calculations... sold Torres, bought Carroll, and sold him again......and made £2m . That's chicken on a basketball good