Club's Transfer "Comfort Zone"

[TottenhamMattSpur]

Zokora - hard to believe but I think we all but got our money back for Zokora when we sold him to Sevilla.

Jenas - always a favourite target for abuse but wasn't actually a terrible purchase for us overall. His superb performances in both legs of the 2008 Carling Cup semi final, and the final itself, were almost worth the transfer fee alone.

Bentley - yep, unmitigated disaster.

Gomes - was never the player for us that he had been at PSV but still played a full part in our CL qualifying team in 2009-10. In particular, those two incredible (and crucial) saves against Arsenal in our 2-1 win at the Lane which set us up for the run in.

Keane and Palacios - different situation. Genuine relegation fears. Drastic action required. Desperately needed a DM. Desperately needed a striker, especially after Jermain Defoe was injured for us during his first game back at the club. Both played their part in getting us out of trouble (Palacios especially). Worth their fees for that alone.

Besides which, there are plenty of other relatively expensive players who have proved to be good buys.

So I repeat, if the right player is identified, we will splash out if we have to. We just won't do it routinely.

I never had a problem with Jenas, we just didn't sell him until his value dropped to nothing.

 

[spurs9]

The list should also include Berbatov.

When Spurs signed him for £11m in 2006, our turnover was £74m. Our turnover now is £180m. So in today's money, £11m would be the equivalent of £26m - as expensive as Soldado but a huge success both on the pitch and as a purely financial transaction.

I think it should be in relation to transfers at the time more than turnover, in which case Berbatov shouldn't be included as that same year Shevchenko went to Chelsea for 30m, Obi Mikel went for 16m, Obafemi Martins went to Newcastle for 12m, Bolton signed an out of sorts Anelka for 8m and Middlesborough signed Huth for 6m. In fact, just 1 season later we spend 16.5m on Bent and Utd spent 30m on Nani and Anderson.

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

I think any signing that disrupts the harmony and team ethos of any squad is the worst and neither Soldado or Lamela did that and in fact by all accounts they're very well liked in the dressing room.

I say this because transfers go well beyond money and a team ethic is often something you can not buy.

I agree having a kinsman, Davids or a VDV in the squad can really go well beyond their contribution on the pitch.
But they added a touch of class even in their twilight years whilst on the pitch.
So far Soldado and Lamela haven't.

 

[Wheeler Dealer]

This is the strategy that Arsenal used for years while they built and paid off their stadium, and it kept them in the Champions League.

This is the strategy that Dortmund used to win the Bundesliga and reach a Champions League final.

It is the strategy that Schalke have used to stay in the Champions League for several years.

It is the strategy that Atletico used to win La Liga and reach a Champions League final (only Falcao was > $15m from 2008-2013).

It is a perfectly valid and highly competitive strategy as long as it is implemented correctly.

The common denominator here is they all had outstanding coaches

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Dawson

SC's five quid richer.

 

[ButchCassidy]

The common denominator here is they all had outstanding coaches

Outstanding coaches and a good scouting team. We seem to be betting that we have both in place now.

 

[spurs9]

SC's five quid richer.

I wish I could like this and rate funny.

 

[beats1]

It doesn't say we are going exclusively to that policy. I'm sure, it's just main policy but if the right players are available we will spend more if necessary e.g if Depay was available for 20m and willing to join us, I'm sure we would snap him up.

Of all the players we have signed 15m and over, (Modric, Bentley, Bent, Defoe, Dembele, Lamela, Soldado & Paulinho) only Modric has been a success. The best you could say about the rest is "ok squad player" or "at least we somehow got our money back".

They werent poor signings because of their price tags, other wise Bale would be the worst signing in world.

Also Modric at the time we brought, cost us about 20% of our revenue whilst being about 33% of world record transfer

Now a £15m signing would be less than 10% of our revenue and about 17% of the world record bid

Not to mention prices are going to continue to go up on all players minus third party ones over the next couple of years as the tv deal is making the PL alot more financially stronger.

My issue with all of this was that there was a feeling of going to a quality not quantity strategy but it doesn't seem like we are and it could back fire. With this strategy we are competing with likes of Southampton and Everton who could unlike us offer guaranteed first team football and wont have the issue of going alot higher as they aren't saving for a stadium whilst we are confined to a zero net spend.

 

[Samson]

This is the strategy that Arsenal used for years while they built and paid off their stadium, and it kept them in the Champions League.

This is the strategy that Dortmund used to win the Bundesliga and reach a Champions League final.

It is the strategy that Schalke have used to stay in the Champions League for several years.

It is the strategy that Atletico used to win La Liga and reach a Champions League final (only Falcao was > $15m from 2008-2013).

It is a perfectly valid and highly competitive strategy as long as it is implemented correctly.

3rd party ownership and enfeebled competition make Athletico a poor comparator. Agree with the principle.

 

[jambreck]

I think it should be in relation to transfers at the time more than turnover, in which case Berbatov shouldn't be included as that same year Shevchenko went to Chelsea for 30m, Obi Mikel went for 16m, Obafemi Martins went to Newcastle for 12m, Bolton signed an out of sorts Anelka for 8m and Middlesborough signed Huth for 6m. In fact, just 1 season later we spend 16.5m on Bent and Utd spent 30m on Nani and Anderson.

Again, I have to say that I don't think that that's relevant.

The discussion at hand is whether or not Spurs would ever take a risk on another £25-30m player. So what other clubs might have done in the past has no bearing on the matter. The point is that, at the THST meeting, Spurs apparently suggested that they will be returning to a transfer policy that served them well in the past. And that policy included buying a player (Berbatov) for the equivalent of 15% of turnover back in 2006.

15% of turnover in 2015 would be in the region of £27m.

(And BTW, if the signing of Berbatov shouldn't be considered expensive for the reasons that you cite, then it's arguable that none of our signings in the Premier League era should be considered so - since none of them have been out of the ordinary by Premier League standards)

 

[Samson]

The crucial element here is retention. If Levy were to sell Lloris in the summer, or Lloris and Eriksen, he will need to be seen to spend the income. Wenger got away with selling players during the stadium build because they were in the CL, season in , season out. The club had no chance but to punt the Bale money in 2013. Can you imagine the reaction if we'd sold Bale and signed Danny Ings on a free? And we'll have a new ground to fill before long.

 

[Sweech]

3rd party ownership and enfeebled competition make Athletico a poor comparator. Agree with the principle.

Not to mention we can't get half the players Athletico get because of work permit issues.

 

[spurs9]

Again, I have to say that I don't think that that's relevant.

The discussion at hand is whether or not Spurs would ever take a risk on another £25-30m player. So what other clubs might have done in the past has no bearing on the matter. The point is that, at the THST meeting, Spurs apparently suggested that they will be returning to a transfer policy that served them well in the past. And that policy included buying a player (Berbatov) for the equivalent of 15% of turnover back in 2006.

15% of turnover in 2015 would be in the region of £27m.

(And BTW, if the signing of Berbatov shouldn't be considered expensive for the reasons that you cite, then it's arguable that none of our signings in the Premier League era should be considered so - since none of them have been out of the ordinary by Premier League standards)

No, my reply was in response to the discussion that 11m on Berbatov would be equivalent to 26m now, so comparative fees for other players in that transfer window is absolutely relevant, more so than current vs past turnover.

 

[spurs9]

3rd party ownership and enfeebled competition make Athletico a poor comparator. Agree with the principle.

Not if compared to direct competition. Real also have the same advantages, yet spend considerably more, as do Barcelona, who also have a great academy to compliment, so can spend that money on just 1 or 2 players.

 

[jambreck]

It's true Soldado was more proven, but IMO it was less prudent because a) he was considerably older, b) he was not accustomed to playing as a lone striker, and c) we brought in a smaller poacher tasked with continuing that in the world's most physical league - and all that for 2.5x the fee for Berbs.

Definitely.

And, whenever we do spend big (more than £15m) again, I would expect far more by way of due diligence.

 

[jambreck]

No, my reply was in response to the discussion that 11m on Berbatov would be equivalent to 26m now, so comparative fees for other players in that transfer window is absolutely relevant, more so than current vs past turnover.

Applying the same logic, how is spending £25-30m on one player now any different to spending £11m nine years ago when you consider that players are now routinely being bought and sold for £20m, £30m or even £40m. Not to mention that at least one or two players every year seem to change hands for £50-60m+ these days.

So I stand by what I said. The fee paid for Berbatov back in 2006 is absolutely comparable to a £25-30m signing now.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Zokora, Jenas, Bentley, Gomes, Keane, Palacios,

That's roughly £66m there if I count it on my fingers quickly. Mostly go in the same bucket as Soldado and Lamela as "relatively" expensive loss makers.

How an earth can you call Jenas a waste of money. He cost us around 7m, made about 200 appearances for us, which coincided with us becoming a consistent top 5 team, played a major role in us winning our only cup in the last 15 years, and was the player who's performance dragged us (though Bale naturally took all the plaudits) back into the CL against Inter away when we were down to ten men.

He was one of the most consistent performers and most productive CM's we've had in recent years, despite the fact that he wasn't really supposed to be playing as a CM2.

 

[Davo99]

I'm happy with all of that. (@OP)

Spending big doesn't necessarily guarantee you a star player or what it is we need. We all know our situation as a Club and that's the sensible way to do business. What we need to be sure of though is the players we do bring in are players Poch is happy to come in and work with and that they are well thought out buys for areas we need to improve - not just players that represent value for money. We need to stop stock piling players in areas we're covered in whilst neglecting the positions that need strengthening, regardless of who's available.

 

[jambreck]

How an earth can you call Jenas a waste of money. He cost us around 7m, made about 200 appearances for us, which coincided with us becoming a consistent top 5 team, played a major role in us winning our only cup in the last 15 years, and was the player who's performance dragged us (though Bale naturally took all the plaudits) back into the CL against Inter away when we were down to ten men.

He was one of the most consistent performers and most productive CM's we've had in recent years, despite the fact that he wasn't really supposed to be playing as a CM2.

To be fair, TottenhamMattSpur did subsequently explain that he wasn't suggesting that Jenas was a waste of money. He was merely referring to the fact that we received little or no transfer fee for him.

 

[spurs9]

They werent poor signings because of their price tags, other wise Bale would be the worst signing in world.

Also Modric at the time we brought, cost us about 20% of our revenue whilst being about 33% of world record transfer

Now a £15m signing would be less than 10% of our revenue and about 17% of the world record bid

Not to mention prices are going to continue to go up on all players minus third party ones over the next couple of years as the tv deal is making the PL alot more financially stronger.

My issue with all of this was that there was a feeling of going to a quality not quantity strategy but it doesn't seem like we are and it could back fire. With this strategy we are competing with likes of Southampton and Everton who could unlike us offer guaranteed first team football and wont have the issue of going alot higher as they aren't saving for a stadium whilst we are confined to a zero net spend.

Just 1 year later that would have dropped from 33% to about 20% (a difference going from 30m to 63.5m) of the world transfer record, but I doubt Modric would have cost us around 30m if he had stayed at Dinamo another year.

Hasn't our expenditure also increased in that time?