Redknapp: What if Spurs pushed harder?


Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2014
Newcastle bought Asprilla in Feb 96, in their push for the title.
Not cheap but very talented. That worked well...

For me that is not the problem. The lack of transfers will not hit us hard this season, but the next few seasons. Many of our bigger stars will move on for whatever reason and we'll have no-one with potential to step into their shoes. It is a terrible mistake.

Henry Percy

Active Member
Dec 7, 2006
mid season transfer window is usually the worst. Only players other teams want to get rid of are available, unless we are prepared to pay well over the odds.

Then the new player needs to get used to the system etc. Also make sure they won't disrupt the team dynamic.

How much better Lucas looks this season, he hardly played for us after we bought him in Jan last year.

Pundits can sprout all they want look at how G Neville and Henry performed when they were managing.


Grunge baby forever
Oct 21, 2012
Yet last week, after the Chelsea game, he quite rightly said it’s so difficult to bring players in that are better than what we have.
I’d imagine his Sky producers ask for a different view today.

I just wish someone would say it how it is; we are 1, maybe 2 players away from an amazing squad. But even then, after a World Cup and minimal pre-season training, this season was always going to be difficult.
Look at our closest rivals - City and Liverpool - they both spend way above us with no stadium overheads.
I still pinch myself to see how we are doing so well.
This is what you really have to bare in mind when watching SKY or listening to Talksport who are also part of Sky.
These people work for Sky. They also have agents and a network of individuals who do well out of transfers.
Sky pay the Premier League a shit pile of money so clubs can bring in brilliant players from all over the world and help sell their product.
Now imagine some little upstart gate crashes their CL top 4 money bag clubs and then has the front to not only not spend any of it in their media circus called the transfer window not once but twice. I'd imagine they're not very happy with us.
We're spoiling their party.
I've said before if Sky could have Liverpool, Man U, Man City and Chelsea finishing top 4 every year they'd be delighted. Even Arsenal have fallen out of favour imo because they cant compete with those ass hats.


Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2009
What the idiot is also choosing to ignore and many other like him including Shearer and Souness et al is how we get around what we do if every time we bid for a player, Man City and Chelsea just deliberately steam in and outbid us. Do they still think we should simply try to outbid them until we get these magical players that suddenly transfer our 2nd and 3rd places and semi finals into silverware. Do they still think we should simply change our wage bill structures to match theirs ? If it was as easy as they seem to think it is without financially crippling us do you not think we’d have gone out and done it ? How do they think we are actually going to do this without becoming the next Portsmouth or Leeds? How do they think they this stadium is going to be paid for, with shirt buttons ? We don’t get a stadium for peanuts like West Ham. It’s the reason why none of them are directors of finance or know anything about having to manage on tight financial constraints whilst competing against others who have endless supplies of money to burn. Even when Klievert and the presenter were trying explain the financial barriers we were up against Redknapp was still choosing to conveniently ignore the realities. Complete dickheads these pundits are.


I ate all the pies
Jul 27, 2003
Redknapp is such a knob. He said we need to push harder in the transfer market but then asks kluivert if he would join spurs to play second fiddle to Kane!!! What a knob. Instead of jumping on the popular narrative, why doesn't someone actually discuss who is available and if they would actually improve the first XI. That's what Poch wants and as far as I'm aware none of the fantastic pundits have ever had success as a manager.... So what the fcuk do they know?

Matty miller

Active Member
Jul 7, 2016
There is something in the sky a gender we talk about. It’s Funny when you listen to Martin Tyler on sky compared to when he’s working for the premier league.


Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2004
The question should be more how the hell can city, Chelsea and PSG spend so much more then the rest and be FFP compliant?

I accept Man U have a massive commercial base again they are so far a head of Barca, juve and Madrid.
Be interesting to add in a wage colmn as well


Active Member
Dec 23, 2006
Very strange that Neville and Carragher were talking about how hard it is for City and the other rich clubs to get the players they want. Yet Sky think it should be easy for Spurs. Double standards in this as in their entire football coverage. Idiots.


Well-Known Member
May 19, 2004
Redknapp is a media whore. Mr Sky Sports. Can't stand the prick, he is a big part of what makes Sky Football coverage so shite. BT Sport is 10x better for me.

As for their point. No shit. We happen to have a brand new stadium to pay for though.


Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2004
To be fair it’s what Poch has been saying in his round about way over the last 7/8 months.

But at the moment we do have to do it differently, there is a stadium to pay for, we don’t have oodles of oil money and our wage/agent budgeting is very tight.

There was an interesting bit of ITK late that said, this was going to be our summer to make a statement. So we,ll see.

We are doing ridiculously well to compete li,e this with our spending model atm tho
Yeah, that was last year. ITK = pinch of salt remember? And if its not salty, don't smell it.


Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
Yeah, that was last year. ITK = pinch of salt remember? And if its not salty, don't smell it.
I think it's all tied in with the stadium and naming rights etc.. We were supposed to be in for the start of the season but when that all went tits up, so did the transfer agenda. I think Poch's comments about selling older players, even though they're top quality, might be on the cards in the summer with some top drawer replacements coming in. Can't see us unveiling the NWHL with no signings or a couple from the lower Leagues. I'd be surprised if we don't play the rest of the season at Wembley now and go for the Hollywood unveiling at the start of next season.


Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2004
If they "pushed harder" and spent enough money, Acrington Stanley would win the Premiership! Chelsea and Man city were nowhere before they were bought and received bottomless transfer kitties, the sad fact is that football is now driven by money, sucess is largely bought, and even if a club of more modest revenue should stumble upon a truly world class player for relative pocket money (Ie Bale) the wealthy lot will steal them away, so the less well off clubs always stay disadvantaged. Its a vicious circle, the less wealthy clubs cant buy or keep their best players, so they arent sucessful, so they have less money and success, so the best players want to leave, and so it goes elite few claim all the honours, while the rest basically scrabble for the scraps.


Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2008
I think to really make a big difference (i.e. lure big players away from richer clubs) we'd have to break our entire wage structure and pay something stupid like 50% more than we're paying now. Would that 50% make us 50% better? I highly fucking doubt it. How can a club in our position justify that when we're building a stadium?

I buy the argument that we could pay 'a bit more' and perhaps win something, but we've already signed half our stars to bigger contracts - something the pundits conveniently ignore. It's just boring and reductive to assume that every club, especially us, can have their cake and eat it...

...unless it's Yaya Toure's birthday cake in which case we should definitely eat it to piss him off.