comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 50 seconds ago
Also why are we miles ahead of United despite them spending considerably more than we have?

The same reasons. The club have made great decisions, whereas United haven't.

We can use money as an excuse if you like but it doesnt add up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m not doing that, I’m saying money has played a part.

I don’t believe anyone has said it’s the only reason - I certainly haven’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP said it was mostly to do with money. Obviously that's nonsense considering the overall spend of both clubs is similar since Klopp took over. We took one approach, they took another. Theirs may work longterm but short terms ours is working, despite spending much less than them, considering they spend a billion on a stadium.

So yes we can use money as the main reason but it's obvious we've taken completely different approaches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And you implied it was nothing to do with money.

Truth is, both points are wrong and it’s a lot to do with both.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they have spent over a billion more than us. Yet we are ahead. United similar. City similar. Etc. I'd put it down to good decisions myself but if people need excuses, they'll find them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would a United fan need an excuse on this subject?

Face it, you’re wrong to dismiss money as part of the reason why Liverpool are ahead of Spurs and you were wrong to look just at transfer fees when assessing that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasnt talking about a United fan. I was talking about the OP. I was using United as an example that despite spending more money, they have made bad decisions, whereas Liverpool have spent less but made good ones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes but now we’re discussing it. I’m not a United fan and I have no axe to grind.

I am, even!

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Everywhere you go always take Lamela with you (U7905)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Everywhere you go always take Lamela with you (U7905)
posted 1 minute ago
The credit I will give levy is he has now put us in a position where we can spend in line Liverpool/Arsenal/Chelsea. The stadium is a cash cow and will put revenues in line with these clubs.

I guess we will see over the next couple of years whether he is willing too. We now pay big wages, Ndombele and Kane are on £200k pw.


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

Fairly sure Spurs are nowhere near the big clubs around them in terms of wages... whether you could afford to be is debatable.

Mourinho will certainly test that theory!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We aren't currently, but we could be.

Last year's revenue was £380m and that was at Wembley. Think Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea are around £400-450m. The additional new stadium revenue will get us near £450m imo.

Although the next few seasons will drop with no Champions league
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Which shows where the issue is. Spurs chose not to spend their money on wages but put it towards a stadium. We chose the spend ours on wages and redevelop Anfield. Ours was therefore obviously going to have a better short term outcome. Yours is long term.

However qualifying for CL is absolutely vital to Spurs. As it is for most clubs, in order to progress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry but this shows a lack of understanding economically.

Suggesting that capital investments are funded from the same source as the playing staff is completely wrong.

Also, I think if you check back, Liverpool have had a much bigger wage bill than Spurs in living memory and so the idea that each club just decided to appropriate their funds differently is woefully inaccurate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say they were funded from the same source.

I didnt say we didnt have a higher wage bill than Spurs historically.

I said they chose not to capitalise on CL qualification and unprecedented levels of income for them, by increasing their wage bill. They chose to spend the money elsewhere.

The same thing happened at Arsenal, with the same outcome. They stopped spending as much as they had been, on both transfers and wages and others overtook them.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that Spurs didnt buy players in the few windows leading up to the new stadium being built?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I am, even!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I had lost the plot there. Clicked into your profile to see if somebody was impersonating you and doing a very good job!

TOOR, you implied it, quite clearly.

I’m sorry, you’re showing a woeful lack of understanding about how a business is run.

The fact is that Liverpool have, for a long period of time, spent more money on their playing squad than Spurs. That has an impact - a pretty big one.

The suggestion that Spurs had the option to scrap stadium plans and just invest in the squad is woefully missing the point.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
Due to money?

Spurs and Liverpool have a similar net spend over the last 5 or so years.

Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom and that's why they are better than Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does net spend mean that they spend the same??

You invested 150 million on 2 players, Spurs bought no one and spend nothing in 3 transfer windows.

So yes, its a money thing as well, obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't. Liverpool made better decisions from top to bottom and strengthened and refreshed their team while Spurs kept hold of their players until the players went stale, the whole team went stale and they failed to support their manager and the club don't even look after player contracts which kills morale and motivation.

How much have Everton spent?

Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom. Its not about money because everyone has money now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s that comment again.

Clear implication that the only reason the clubs have gone in different directions is due to good/bad management, and nothing to do with money.

Shame the thread is being derailed again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one derailing the thread.

I said what I said.

I didn't say what you said I said. There's a clear difference.

Just leave it at that.

comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
Due to money?

Spurs and Liverpool have a similar net spend over the last 5 or so years.

Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom and that's why they are better than Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does net spend mean that they spend the same??

You invested 150 million on 2 players, Spurs bought no one and spend nothing in 3 transfer windows.

So yes, its a money thing as well, obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't. Liverpool made better decisions from top to bottom and strengthened and refreshed their team while Spurs kept hold of their players until the players went stale, the whole team went stale and they failed to support their manager and the club don't even look after player contracts which kills morale and motivation.

How much have Everton spent?

Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom. Its not about money because everyone has money now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s that comment again.

Clear implication that the only reason the clubs have gone in different directions is due to good/bad management, and nothing to do with money.

Shame the thread is being derailed again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one derailing the thread.

I said what I said.

I didn't say what you said I said. There's a clear difference.

Just leave it at that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I’m discussing the topic. Feel free to join in.

Steve do you not read the comments every time you right one of these articles and realise that everybody thinks you're an idiot?

Sometimes copy and paste is overused....

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
TOOR, you implied it, quite clearly.

I’m sorry, you’re showing a woeful lack of understanding about how a business is run.

The fact is that Liverpool have, for a long period of time, spent more money on their playing squad than Spurs. That has an impact - a pretty big one.

The suggestion that Spurs had the option to scrap stadium plans and just invest in the squad is woefully missing the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and I agree with that, due to the different approaches that I already explained. Spurs have spent more than us, since we were both at a similar level, yet Liverpool are in a better position at this moment in time, due to the different choices made. At thos moment in time ours seems to be the better approach, in ten years time that could prove incorrect as their longterm approach starts to produce.

comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 4 minutes ago
Steve do you not read the comments every time you right one of these articles and realise that everybody thinks you're an idiot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
TOOR, you implied it, quite clearly.

I’m sorry, you’re showing a woeful lack of understanding about how a business is run.

The fact is that Liverpool have, for a long period of time, spent more money on their playing squad than Spurs. That has an impact - a pretty big one.

The suggestion that Spurs had the option to scrap stadium plans and just invest in the squad is woefully missing the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and I agree with that, due to the different approaches that I already explained. Spurs have spent more than us, since we were both at a similar level, yet Liverpool are in a better position at this moment in time, due to the different choices made. At thos moment in time ours seems to be the better approach, in ten years time that could prove incorrect as their longterm approach starts to produce.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Would love to see your calculations.

Fact is you’re taking the stadium spend and suggesting it has replaced player spend. It’s just not accurate because that’s not how investments of that work.

Liverpool are a bigger club with more money to invest in their playing squad and that gives them an advantage over Spurs. That is indisputable.

How did Spurs manage to outperform Liverpool for all those years? Liverpool have always spent more money so that should never happen.

The last few years are definitely comparable with Liverpool suffering boardroom problems which translated on to the pitch. All those transfers would not have happened without the sale of Coutinho which is something Spurs could have done.

We bought Coutinho for 8m and sold him for 125m. Suarez for 23 sold for 70m. A clear plan to develop and improve the club which accounts for the financial strength (or lack of, as it was for Liverpool at the time).

Show me where Spurs have done anything like that. They've kept their Harry Kanes and Dele Allis. They were in the champions league when the new money came in and Liverpool were not.

Spurs vs Liverpool is not about money, its about Liverpool being better managed in the last 5-10 years.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
Due to money?

Spurs and Liverpool have a similar net spend over the last 5 or so years.

Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom and that's why they are better than Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does net spend mean that they spend the same??

You invested 150 million on 2 players, Spurs bought no one and spend nothing in 3 transfer windows.

So yes, its a money thing as well, obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't. Liverpool made better decisions from top to bottom and strengthened and refreshed their team while Spurs kept hold of their players until the players went stale, the whole team went stale and they failed to support their manager and the club don't even look after player contracts which kills morale and motivation.

How much have Everton spent?

Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom. Its not about money because everyone has money now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s that comment again.

Clear implication that the only reason the clubs have gone in different directions is due to good/bad management, and nothing to do with money.

Shame the thread is being derailed again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one derailing the thread.

I said what I said.

I didn't say what you said I said. There's a clear difference.

Just leave it at that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I’m discussing the topic. Feel free to join in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was doing that before you derailed the thread.

comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 seconds ago
Due to money? Don't Liverpool have a lower net spend than Spurs over Klopp's time? Also didn't Spurs spend over £100m in the summer whilst Liverpool spent nothing.

I'd say it's due to the manager, rather than money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have a look at the wage bills over that time.

Of course money has played a part - hence why you’ve got Mane and Spurs haven’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We got Mane cos Spurs didn't want to pay him 100k a week.

Spurs then sign sissoko on 100k a week.

Go figure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Web site I checked says Sissoko on £80k but that’s besides the point really - not sure anyone can argue that a strict wage structure has limited Spurs’ potential in the transfer market.

comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
Due to money?

Spurs and Liverpool have a similar net spend over the last 5 or so years.

Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom and that's why they are better than Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does net spend mean that they spend the same??

You invested 150 million on 2 players, Spurs bought no one and spend nothing in 3 transfer windows.

So yes, its a money thing as well, obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't. Liverpool made better decisions from top to bottom and strengthened and refreshed their team while Spurs kept hold of their players until the players went stale, the whole team went stale and they failed to support their manager and the club don't even look after player contracts which kills morale and motivation.

How much have Everton spent?

Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom. Its not about money because everyone has money now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s that comment again.

Clear implication that the only reason the clubs have gone in different directions is due to good/bad management, and nothing to do with money.

Shame the thread is being derailed again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one derailing the thread.

I said what I said.

I didn't say what you said I said. There's a clear difference.

Just leave it at that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I’m discussing the topic. Feel free to join in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was doing that before you derailed the thread.


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

I’m still discussing the topic and replied to you on topic. You’re trying to drag it off topic, just as you always do.

comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
How did Spurs manage to outperform Liverpool for all those years? Liverpool have always spent more money so that should never happen.

The last few years are definitely comparable with Liverpool suffering boardroom problems which translated on to the pitch. All those transfers would not have happened without the sale of Coutinho which is something Spurs could have done.

We bought Coutinho for 8m and sold him for 125m. Suarez for 23 sold for 70m. A clear plan to develop and improve the club which accounts for the financial strength (or lack of, as it was for Liverpool at the time).

Show me where Spurs have done anything like that. They've kept their Harry Kanes and Dele Allis. They were in the champions league when the new money came in and Liverpool were not.

Spurs vs Liverpool is not about money, its about Liverpool being better managed in the last 5-10 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Gareth Bale spring to mind?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Over the next 10 years we will be on a level platform. It's up to the club to make the right decisions on managers/players. Something I have absolutely no faith in them doing.

comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 seconds ago
Due to money? Don't Liverpool have a lower net spend than Spurs over Klopp's time? Also didn't Spurs spend over £100m in the summer whilst Liverpool spent nothing.

I'd say it's due to the manager, rather than money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have a look at the wage bills over that time.

Of course money has played a part - hence why you’ve got Mane and Spurs haven’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We got Mane cos Spurs didn't want to pay him 100k a week.

Spurs then sign sissoko on 100k a week.

Go figure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Web site I checked says Sissoko on £80k but that’s besides the point really - not sure anyone can argue that a strict wage structure has limited Spurs’ potential in the transfer market.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wage structure at spurs is interesting. Apparently, and more than any other club, wages and bonuses are heavily structured depending on performances. So whilst kane may have had a basic wage that was reported of 150k. Realistically it was over 200 on a weekly basis. Obviously all clubs have this, but apparently spurs more than most.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn’t surprise me, with Levy at the helm!

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
How did Spurs manage to outperform Liverpool for all those years? Liverpool have always spent more money so that should never happen.

The last few years are definitely comparable with Liverpool suffering boardroom problems which translated on to the pitch. All those transfers would not have happened without the sale of Coutinho which is something Spurs could have done.

We bought Coutinho for 8m and sold him for 125m. Suarez for 23 sold for 70m. A clear plan to develop and improve the club which accounts for the financial strength (or lack of, as it was for Liverpool at the time).

Show me where Spurs have done anything like that. They've kept their Harry Kanes and Dele Allis. They were in the champions league when the new money came in and Liverpool were not.

Spurs vs Liverpool is not about money, its about Liverpool being better managed in the last 5-10 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Gareth Bale spring to mind?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they sold him and their management either spunked the money up the wall or refused to spend it.

That's where the difference is. Management, not money. spurs have had money.

comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
How did Spurs manage to outperform Liverpool for all those years? Liverpool have always spent more money so that should never happen.

The last few years are definitely comparable with Liverpool suffering boardroom problems which translated on to the pitch. All those transfers would not have happened without the sale of Coutinho which is something Spurs could have done.

We bought Coutinho for 8m and sold him for 125m. Suarez for 23 sold for 70m. A clear plan to develop and improve the club which accounts for the financial strength (or lack of, as it was for Liverpool at the time).

Show me where Spurs have done anything like that. They've kept their Harry Kanes and Dele Allis. They were in the champions league when the new money came in and Liverpool were not.

Spurs vs Liverpool is not about money, its about Liverpool being better managed in the last 5-10 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Gareth Bale spring to mind?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they sold him and their management either spunked the money up the wall or refused to spend it.

That's where the difference is. Management, not money. spurs have had money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You asked people to show you where Spurs have done anything like that.

I named Gareth Bale.

As for the Bale money, perfect example of money being spent on transfers but limited wages meaning it didn’t take the club onto other level.

Wages have been key in football.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
Due to money?

Spurs and Liverpool have a similar net spend over the last 5 or so years.

Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom and that's why they are better than Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How does net spend mean that they spend the same??

You invested 150 million on 2 players, Spurs bought no one and spend nothing in 3 transfer windows.

So yes, its a money thing as well, obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't. Liverpool made better decisions from top to bottom and strengthened and refreshed their team while Spurs kept hold of their players until the players went stale, the whole team went stale and they failed to support their manager and the club don't even look after player contracts which kills morale and motivation.

How much have Everton spent?

Liverpool are better managed from top to bottom. Its not about money because everyone has money now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s that comment again.

Clear implication that the only reason the clubs have gone in different directions is due to good/bad management, and nothing to do with money.

Shame the thread is being derailed again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one derailing the thread.

I said what I said.

I didn't say what you said I said. There's a clear difference.

Just leave it at that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I’m discussing the topic. Feel free to join in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was doing that before you derailed the thread.


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

I’m still discussing the topic and replied to you on topic. You’re trying to drag it off topic, just as you always do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one who brought io the thread being derailed.

You're not an authority on threads being derailed. That's just your opinion.

Just discuss the topic and stop the sideshows. Thanks.