The liquidity point is an odd one. Sounds like he was expecting it to somehow get easier.
Déjà vu tbh.
- DL said that transfers were tricky. If we could have sold XYZ and found someone better, we would have done it
- DL said he was disappointed that the market was not as liquid as it had been previously
What did longshanks say about these two items?
- MC explained that, while not understanding the complexities, people are worried that two windows have passed without investing in the team, the stadium has overrun and people are worried about us standing still
- KL said the fans feel that the team was so close to winning and so close to taking that final step that the lack of investment in the playing side this year has been particularly distressing and frustrating
I don't see it as an excuse if we get CL we might not have to spend as much however we'd have to spend more to get back into contention.Also mentioned CL football next season will provide more flexibility. Sounds like excuses are being put forward already in case CL qualification is not achieved this season.
In case levy hasn’t noticed CL qualification last few seasons has hardly helped us in the transfer market !
I think his point is the opposite of what you are saying: that the stadium debt is in separate borrowing facilities, probably secured mainly on the asset of the NDP itself, whereas player trading comes out of general club funds and debt. Thus the capital cost of the stadium is unlikely to affect player trading negatively.These are the bits that concern me:-
Well that's rather disappointing I was hoping that with the new stadium the net spend would well and truly affected.
- MG asked whether the amount for transfers was shrinking given the stadium outlay
- DL said no. The fact that stadium costs had risen does not impact that number
- DL said that with a debt of £637m, subject to reasonable assumption on interest rates, the net spend on players would not be affected
Yeah I get that I was just hoping that the net spend on players could rise a teensy weensy little bit with the extra revenue from the ground, my toungue was firmly in my cheek.I think his point is the opposite of what you are saying: that the stadium debt is in separate borrowing facilities, probably secured mainly on the asset of the NDP itself, whereas player trading comes out of general club funds and debt. Thus the capital cost of the stadium is unlikely to affect player trading negatively.
Over the next few years, especially after any profits from Phase 3 of the NDP are used to reduce the stadium debt, we can gradually look forward to the increased revenue from the stadium feeding into the club's general profitability and making player trading easier.
Bovvered, TBHYeah I get that I was just hoping that the net spend on players could rise a teensy weensy little bit with the extra revenue from the ground, my toungue was firmly in my cheek.
I know he was reassuring them that the stadium build wouldn't affect spending on players but people overlook that "the net spend on players will not be affected" cuts both ways, it may also mean that our net spend isn't going to rise which, I think you'll agree, would be rather disappointing.
We're sailing a bit too close to the wind this year for my liking. Wait and see I guess.Bovvered, TBH
As I wrote on another thread this week, we spend plenty on a player when there is youth, talent, capacity for improvement and character in the same package. Record-setting transfer fees for Aurier, Sanchez and Sissoko would suggest as much, plus a fair whack for Lucas as well.
It's just not our business model, nor is it Pochettino's preferred team-building strategy, to buy ready-made stars. What we have been doing has been working, it has delivered us to a couple of rungs above our expected level on the ladder and I have no desire for the club to change its approach, as long as we keep qualifying for the Champions League. A club that perennially qualifies for the CL is good enough to win some trophies in good time.