What's new

Tottenham keen on hiring on highly-rated Sevilla 'talent spotter'

Shirtfront

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2005
1,247
406
I do think it is fair to question whether or not Baldini has delivered value for money.

Yes, his net spend may be "0" - but equally he has been handed a transfer budget of £100m to spend. The question is not whether the side is better or worse as a result of that trade (that was not his decision); but rather whether, given he has a transfer budget of £100m has he spent it well.

Even the most optimistic of you must say the Jury is at least out on that.

It's all very well to say his signings are running the team; but the question is whether they should be?

It is impossible to know whether he could have done better or not; because we don't know who else we could realistically have signed.

However, when I compare his signings to other similar outlays (not just individually but in aggregate), I do have some concerns. I am not just talking about the individual signings (Soldado; Lamela; and so on) - but the strategy behind the signings. For example:

- did he sign too many at once? Would it not have been better to sign a few world class players in key positions rather than half a dozen in similar ones?

- did he sign too many players without Premiership experience?

- did he forget about the defence and miss key weaknesses in the full back position - so critical to modern football?

3 managers later with little obvious progress, I think it is fair to start asking some questions about the squad; how it was assembled; and the quality (or at least value) of some of the individual signings. Baldini is the guy holding those reins....
 

Gaz_Gammon

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2005
16,047
18,013
I'm not saying he's Ronaldo, but he's come so close on a number of occasions that I'd wager a bet he will have 10+ at the end of the season and 20+ at the end of the next.


Lamela scored one every three games for Roma and none in fifteen for Spurs. I'll take your'e bet and some. As an attacking midfielder/winger he is no more potent than Lennon or Townsend yet cost millions and millions more.

Good player and a great prospect but name me the last prospect any club spent thirty million on. For that money and for a club with a limited financial transfer budget like Spurs you would expect the finished article rather then a punt on him possibly being the next "Ronaldo" as you put it.
 

slartibartfast

Grunge baby forever
Oct 21, 2012
18,320
33,955
I do think it is fair to question whether or not Baldini has delivered value for money.

Yes, his net spend may be "0" - but equally he has been handed a transfer budget of £100m to spend. The question is not whether the side is better or worse as a result of that trade (that was not his decision); but rather whether, given he has a transfer budget of £100m has he spent it well.

Even the most optimistic of you must say the Jury is at least out on that.

It's all very well to say his signings are running the team; but the question is whether they should be?

It is impossible to know whether he could have done better or not; because we don't know who else we could realistically have signed.

However, when I compare his signings to other similar outlays (not just individually but in aggregate), I do have some concerns. I am not just talking about the individual signings (Soldado; Lamela; and so on) - but the strategy behind the signings. For example:

- did he sign too many at once? Would it not have been better to sign a few world class players in key positions rather than half a dozen in similar ones?

- did he sign too many players without Premiership experience?

- did he forget about the defence and miss key weaknesses in the full back position - so critical to modern football?

3 managers later with little obvious progress, I think it is fair to start asking some questions about the squad; how it was assembled; and the quality (or at least value) of some of the individual signings. Baldini is the guy holding those reins....
Well done sir.
At last someone asking the right questions rather than simply stating the players are in the team and net spend was zero so he hasnt spent anything really so has done ok.
Honestly with that twisted logic he may as well piss off. The end result would be zero net spend and the players we have left would still be playing so job well done yes?
Hypothetical- You sell a player for 200m. You spend 200m on average players, one of which cost 100m, one at 50m and one at 25m plus others. Not surprisingly some get in the starting 11. Zero net spend but thats ok???
I'm truly baffled that some think he's done a good job.
Its as you said, value for money thats the issue and anyway you wanna dress it up he's spent an f-in fortune with nothing to show for it.
I think he may have played the 'it'll take time' card so Levy held off the chop but now it looks like the truth is coming out. We pissed it all up the wall.
Edit (while Im on a rant lol)- Lamella. Back hander. Bet my maple nuts on it.
 
Last edited:

JerryGarcia

Dark star crashes...
May 18, 2006
8,694
16,026
Lamela scored one every three games for Roma and none in fifteen for Spurs. I'll take your'e bet and some. As an attacking midfielder/winger he is no more potent than Lennon or Townsend yet cost millions and millions more.

Good player and a great prospect but name me the last prospect any club spent thirty million on. For that money and for a club with a limited financial transfer budget like Spurs you would expect the finished article rather then a punt on him possibly being the next "Ronaldo" as you put it.

This is not true though. The finished article won't sign for us, we have to go for potential. In Lamela's case he was signed in the hope that he could replace Bale (a finished article who wanted to leave) but there's no reason for us fans to even talk about his fee now to be honest, it's all covered by other deals. The lad has shown he is starting to get to grips with the league so it's looking much better for him anyway.

When you sign players with potential it's only natural that some of them won't make it so there's not really a need to start on Baldini when all he's done is to bring in those kinds of players, players who we were excited about when they joined us. Ok some of them haven't lived up to the hype but that's just part of football, you have to take the rough with the smooth.
 

mawspurs

Staff
Jun 29, 2003
35,040
17,697
For me the biggest two disappointments of Baldini's signings are Ciriches and Paulinho, neither of whom cost fortunes.

Lamella and Soldado yes we would expect more for the price but once clubs knew we had that cash in the bank we were always going to get quoted high. In Lamella's case his first season was a write off through injury. Soldado was in and out of the side.

Dier looks to be useful, Eriksson has huge potential and neither cost the earth.

So Baldini has had more hits than misses at the moment.

But from the original article it seems he may be going, possibly mutual decision. In which case Monchi looks like he could be a decent replacement.
 

Gaz_Gammon

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2005
16,047
18,013
This is not true though. The finished article won't sign for us, we have to go for potential. In Lamela's case he was signed in the hope that he could replace Bale (a finished article who wanted to leave) but there's no reason for us fans to even talk about his fee now to be honest, it's all covered by other deals. The lad has shown he is starting to get to grips with the league so it's looking much better for him anyway.

When you sign players with potential it's only natural that some of them won't make it so there's not really a need to start on Baldini when all he's done is to bring in those kinds of players, players who we were excited about when they joined us. Ok some of them haven't lived up to the hype but that's just part of football, you have to take the rough with the smooth.


No reason to talk about his transfer fee?

Well, to be fair what else is there to talk about? His goals?

To suggest that we "covered his cost by other deals" makes no sense as it's about what he has added to the team for his thirty million transfer fee surely? As i said before for that kind of outlay there were better players available. Taking a punt for that kind of money for us anyway simply has to pay off.

I really hope he makes it but if at the end of this season he's still struggling to adapt (and he currently still is) then Levy will have a great deal to answer for when you consider the cost of Lamela and Soldado, close to fifty million for what is so far an appalling return on investment.

You know when any of us think about David Bentley be truthful, do you think about his goal at Arsenal, his dunking of Harry after the Citeh game or the fifteen million that Levy wasted on him?
 

glenda

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2005
1,254
78
Chadli, Eriksen, Capoue, Lamela - forgive me but aren't they sort of running the team at the moment? Dier? More than most, eh? Ok. And considering that he spent a total of zilch last summer, I'd say he hasn't done a bad job of things.

They are not good signing. Ok Erikson is good and came with at a decent price. But was well known and had been tracked by Liverpool an arsenal. But Soldado & Lamela are cost nearly 60 mil. Read it and think about that for a minute. That pair have been bloody awful. Frank Arnersen with that kind of money would have spent it much more wisely. And to be fair, im not convinced by Poch either.
 
Top