Futbol Talk

[jesmu84]

My numbers are the period ending 19/20 not 2021. And they include selling not just buying.

And, the overall point remains the same. Mourinho went somewhere that would pay him among the top $ in the league. And, with recently increased revenue (doubled over this period), $ 1 Billion Stadium spending, etc....the expectation is that Tottenham would be able to compete with top tier clubs. No one expects them to wildly spend, or change dramatically.  But I also don't believe he'd go there if these things were not happening.

But that's not what you started with.

You started by saying the club was spending with the top tier for players.

[BM1090]

Starting to think that maybe Fulham has a solid shot to stay up.

Although now that I've said it, Liverpool is going to win 7-0 on Sunday.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Starting to think that maybe Fulham has a solid shot to stay up.

Although now that I've said it, Liverpool is going to win 7-0 on Sunday.

Burnley, sheff united, aresnal, and west brom.  I like Fulham's chances.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

 

I'm happy for you that you can have such a sense of optimism about something in 2020.

Some truth, some banter.  Better than being 100% miserable like you are.

[Its DJOver]

Some truth, some banter.  Better than being 100% miserable like you are.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm miserable, it's been a tough year yes, but I think I'm holding together all right. 

As for this topic I just think I'm more objective since the English team that I've been a fan of isn't in the Prem, so I don't have as much of a rooting interest, and just want to watch good games.  Nothing wrong with seeing things through the lens that you do, Spurs have certainly started the season well, I'm just not convinced that there current form is sustainable for the entire season.  I'm not rooting against them by any means, I just see some worrying signs that you may overlook due to your fandom.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm miserable, it's been a tough year yes, but I think I'm holding together all right. 

As for this topic I just think I'm more objective since the English team that I've been a fan of isn't in the Prem, so I don't have as much of a rooting interest, and just want to watch good games.  Nothing wrong with seeing things through the lens that you do, Spurs have certainly started the season well, I'm just not convinced that there current form is sustainable for the entire season.  I'm not rooting against them by any means, I just see some worrying signs that you may overlook due to your fandom.

Brewers
Bears
MU
Spurs

I'll take my joy where i can get it.

[Its DJOver]

And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you can recognize that your biases may lead you to draw different conclusions than people that have different biases than you do.  I'm still not sure that makes me "miserable".

[ZiggysFryBoy]

And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you can recognize that your biases may lead you to draw different conclusions than people that have different biases than you do.  I'm still not sure that makes me "miserable".

Ok.

[jesmu84]

Brewers
Bears
MU
Spurs

I'll take my joy where i can get it.

Cross off brewers and that's my list.

Jeez Zig, I think we need to start a social support group.

[shoothoops]

But that's not what you started with.

You started by saying the club was spending with the top tier for players.

No, actually, I didn't.

This was my original post in quotes:

"Tottenham isn't exactly Little Sisters of the Poor. Mourinho is the 2nd highest paid Manager in the league. Spurs more than doubled their revenue the prior half decade before his hire. Increased broadcast money, sponsor money, other etc... They were 8th in World Revenue for 2018-2019 (better than Chelsea and Arsenal), 4th richest English Club. They may be less marketed as some of the others at and near the $ top, but they are a big money club."


See, this was, has been, and still is, what type of team would Mourinho join. That's the topic of what I said. I said, they are a big money club because they are now a big money club. Being a big money club doesn't mean they spend the most.

I have never suggested Spurs have or will spend with the world's biggest spenders. They don't have to, to still be considered a big money club. You seem overly interested in which few clubs spend the most in total spending vs the net spending that I mentioned, which is one of many things I mentioned in follow up posts. You seem more interested in this than the actual topic and point of my post.

Where would Jose go?

Would it be Little Sisters of the Poor? Or would it be a team that would make him the 2nd highest paid Manager in the Premier League?

Would it be Little Sisters of the Poor? Or would it be the 8th largest soccer revenue generating team in the world?

Would it be Little Sisters of the Poor? Or would it be a team that opened a new $ 1 Billion stadium?

Would it be a team that couldn't compete at a high level? Or would it be a team that smart deals such as they did with Heung-min Son and Lucas Moura?

Would it be a team that wouldn't add pieces? Or would it be a team that spent a club record $68 million for Tanguy Ndombele?

But wait Tottenham of the past did this or that? What does that have to do with Mourinho taking their job? The above mentioned examples, illustrate in part, why Jose would take the Spurs managerial job.

Perhaps Tottenham will pay their players in free pizza and pints only moving forward. Perhaps they will only live in the past. But they are a big money team, that can put competitive teams on the field that can win. They do have those capabilities, yes. They are a "Haves" in a world of "Haves and Have nots."

That is to not conclude they will all of a sudden spend the among the most in the world for players now or in the future. I am not sure what that is so difficult to understand.

We'll see how it goes.

[shoothoops]

Silly argument all around IMO.  All big clubs spend big, and exact $ can be misleading.  For example, Spurs have three players in their rotation that are in on loan, that's more than the rest of the "big 6" combined.  That means you're not paying transfer fees on those players.  Vinicius + Bale + Fernandes transfermarkt value is about 70 mil. That's great from a Spurs perspective as that's money saved (as well as $ saved on Bale's salary).  The problem then comes when those loans expire, and you have to fill that roster spot, either from buying the former "loanee", buying or loaning a different player, or promoting from the academy.  The result of that decision is a better determination for total $ spent IMO. 

Also worth noting that Reguilon came at below market value because Spurs agreed to a "buy back" clause.  Smart from certain perspectives in that you got a quality player at below market price, and forced the other bidder for him (Man U) to scramble and end up getting an older, worse option in Alex Tellas.  But if that clause is activated, they could be in trouble, especially if they don't think that Sessegnon is ready yet, you may be back to seeing Ben Davies as the starting LB.  Not a great option IMO.

Point is, that there are plenty of ways to manipulate spending, and once you get figures as high as they are, it gets more and more grey.  Not saying that Spurs are doing it the right or wrong way, it's just the way that they are currently operating, and reflects a lower total wage bill.

All good points.

[Pakuni]

No, actually, I didn't.

Here's what you wrote that Spurs fans are taking issue with:

"Their spending has been in a similar range to Chelsea the past five years, which doesn't include the money spent on their new $1 Billion plus stadium."

No matter how you slice it, this is objectively not true. Chelsea literally has spent hundreds of millions more over the past five years.
The rest is speculation about what could happen in the future or what kind of club Mourinho would work for. You may end up being right about all of that, but that doesn't make what you wrote above true.
And, given how his previous two gigs worked out, I think you're vastly overstating Jose's options at that point. In truth, Tottenham was probably about a good an opportunity as he could have expected, and perhaps better.

[jesmu84]

No, actually, I didn't.

This was my original post in quotes:

"Tottenham isn't exactly Little Sisters of the Poor. Mourinho is the 2nd highest paid Manager in the league. Spurs more than doubled their revenue the prior half decade before his hire. Increased broadcast money, sponsor money, other etc... They were 8th in World Revenue for 2018-2019 (better than Chelsea and Arsenal), 4th richest English Club. They may be less marketed as some of the others at and near the $ top, but they are a big money club."


See, this was, has been, and still is, what type of team would Mourinho join. That's the topic of what I said. I said, they are a big money club because they are now a big money club. Being a big money club doesn't mean they spend the most.

I have never suggested Spurs have or will spend with the world's biggest spenders. They don't have to, to still be considered a big money club. You seem overly interested in which few clubs spend the most in total spending vs the net spending that I mentioned, which is one of many things I mentioned in follow up posts. You seem more interested in this than the actual topic and point of my post.

Where would Jose go?

Would it be Little Sisters of the Poor? Or would it be a team that would make him the 2nd highest paid Manager in the Premier League?

Would it be Little Sisters of the Poor? Or would it be the 8th largest soccer revenue generating team in the world?

Would it be Little Sisters of the Poor? Or would it be a team that opened a new $ 1 Billion stadium?

Would it be a team that couldn't compete at a high level? Or would it be a team that smart deals such as they did with Heung-min Son and Lucas Moura?

Would it be a team that wouldn't add pieces? Or would it be a team that spent a club record $68 million for Tanguy Ndombele?

But wait Tottenham of the past did this or that? What does that have to do with Mourinho taking their job? The above mentioned examples, illustrate in part, why Jose would take the Spurs managerial job.

Perhaps Tottenham will pay their players in free pizza and pints only moving forward. Perhaps they will only live in the past. But they are a big money team, that can put competitive teams on the field that can win. They do have those capabilities, yes. They are a "Haves" in a world of "Haves and Have nots."

That is to not conclude they will all of a sudden spend the among the most in the world for players now or in the future. I am not sure what that is so difficult to understand.

We'll see how it goes.

My apologies. It was your second point:

Their spending has been in a similar range to Chelsea the past five years, which doesn't include the money spent on their new $1 Billion plus stadium.

And then you doubled-down:

Mourinho didn't become the manager 10 years ago. That is the discussion. In my opinion, he isn't going to go somewhere without the chance to win at the highest level.

Spending similar to Chelsea for the past 5 years, a place where he managed twice before, overtaking them in revenue, entering a new $1 Billion stadium, with team friendly deals for Heung-min Son, and Lucas Moura. (How you spend also matters in addition to how much). Vastly increased revenues, improved results.

Mourinho is also the 2nd highest paid Manager in the league, so he's certainly getting his money. As for the team, we'll see, with the new stadium, new revenue streams and increased revenue, if he gets to field  championship caliber teams. There is certainly the expectation going there that Spurs will be more competitive spenders more so than in their past.

And then you doubled-back in this last post (see bold at the top of this post in your quote).

Ultimately, I think everyone, including Spurs fans agrees with you about revenue/big club. As evidence by Zig's post here:

Dont think anyone is saying that Tottenham are not a huge revenue club.  But they dont spend like United, RM, or Chelsea.

But what people started coming out of the woodwork to argue with you about was the player spending.

If you can agree that Tottenham doesn't spend comparable to Chelsea or United or RM, etc, etc on players, then no one would have any disagreement with the rest of your stances.

[shoothoops]

Here's what you wrote that Spurs fans are taking issue with:

"Their spending has been in a similar range to Chelsea the past five years, which doesn't include the money spent on their new $1 Billion plus stadium."

No matter how you slice it, this is objectively not true. Chelsea literally has spent hundreds of millions more over the past five years.
The rest is speculation about what could happen in the future or what kind of club Mourinho would work for.
And, given how his previous two gigs worked out, I think you're vastly overstating his options at that point. In truth, Tottenham was probably about a good an opportunity as he could have expected, and perhaps better.

We have been through this a few times. I am happy to move on after this, for the rest of the board's sake.

You weren't interested in the topic which is whether or not Spurs is a big money club. Is Spurs a big money club? Yes or No? And part two of the actual topic is that Jose Mourinho took a job there as opposed to a team with less means. I did mention many different things in follow up posts including net spending when discussing Spurs, yes.

Jose didn't go to Sheffield United to make less than a $1 million a year. He went somewhere that is paying him $50 million over a few years. How many teams could and would pay that for example? That's what big money clubs do. Big money clubs build $ 1 Billion stadiums. Big money clubs generate 8th most revenue of any soccer club in the world.

Of course we don't know what will happen in the future. We are all of course, day to day in life. But we certainly see what is going on now.

[JWags85]

We have been through this a few times. I am happy to move on after this, for the rest of the board's sake.

You weren't interested in the topic which is whether or not Spurs is a big money club. Is Spurs a big money club? Yes or No? And part two of the actual topic is that Jose Mourinho took a job there as opposed to a team with less means. I did mention many different things in follow up posts including net spending when discussing Spurs, yes.

Jose didn't go to Sheffield United to make less than a $1 million a year. He went somewhere that is paying him $50 million over a few years. How many teams could and would pay that for example? That's what big money clubs do. Big money clubs build $ 1 Billion stadiums. Big money clubs generate 8th most revenue of any soccer club in the world.

Of course we don't know what will happen in the future. We are all of course, day to day in life. But we certainly see what is going on now.

How can you not admit you were wrong? Unequivocally as pointed out by multiple people. My original point was he didn’t go somewhere that spent annual King’s ransoms rebuilding squads like Man U or Chelsea or Real. No matter how much their stadium costs or how well they have operated the club from a P&L standpoint, they don’t have a war chest seemingly only limited by FFP.

But you keep diverting the conversation as soon as it was shown that they don’t spend like Chelsea and have not aside from 1-2 comparable players over a multi year stretch.  But sure, we can all move on so you don’t continue to double down and shift arguments to how Tottenham’s team cafeteria actually has chefs that worked at the same Gordon Ramsey restaurants as the Chelsea and Man City chefs did before they moved on, clearly big spender club stuff

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I think shootblanks is just pissed that the cheese room got eliminated from NWHL.  Then spurs woulda been a big spending club.

[shoothoops]

My apologies. It was your second point:

And then you doubled-down:

And then you doubled-back in this last post (see bold at the top of this post in your quote).

Ultimately, I think everyone, including Spurs fans agrees with you about revenue/big club. As evidence by Zig's post here:

But what people started coming out of the woodwork to argue with you about was the player spending.

If you can agree that Tottenham doesn't spend comparable to Chelsea or United or RM, etc, etc on players, then no one would have any disagreement with the rest of your stances.

I have said in multiple posts that Tottenham haven't been among the biggest spenders. I am unsure how many times that needs to be said.

I did reference some Net spending vs Total Spending, which are two different things. I used a net spending example, among many other things I mentioned.  I am well aware that Spurs total player spending isn't a wild free for all as it is for some of the very top spending teams. I haven't said otherwise.

Others haven't acknowledged that having the 8th most revenue in the world makes you a big money team.

Others haven't acknowledged that they are paying $50 million to Mourinho, something they weren't doing before.

Others haven't acknowledged that Tottenham set a club $ record with Tanguy Ndombele.

Others haven't acknowledged their new $1 Billion stadium, something they weren't doing before.

Others haven't acknowledged their 15 year deal with Nike, one of the longest Nike has ever done for a soccer club.

Others haven't acknowledged their increased broadcast revenues.


Others haven't acknowledged their $55 million training facility.

Etc...

All of these things have taken place in the last few years.

Spurs are a big money team. What they have and have not done with that has varied. What they do with that in the future remains to be seen. I have repeatedly said I don't believe they will jump to the top of the spending list. But yes they have improved their financials, and they have made both smart moves as well as spent elsewhere, certainly more than they have before 

Mourinho went to a big money team. Or as I said in my post, they aren't exactly Little Sisters of the Poor at this time. That means what it means. It doesn't predict the future. it also doesn't live in the past. It means he's there now, this is who they are now and how they are positioned now financially. It means nothing more, nothing less. ....

[shoothoops]

How can you not admit you were wrong? Unequivocally as pointed out by multiple people. My original point was he didn’t go somewhere that spent annual King’s ransoms rebuilding squads like Man U or Chelsea or Real. No matter how much their stadium costs or how well they have operated the club from a P&L standpoint, they don’t have a war chest seemingly only limited by FFP.

But you keep diverting the conversation as soon as it was shown that they don’t spend like Chelsea and have not aside from 1-2 comparable players over a multi year stretch.  But sure, we can all move on so you don’t continue to double down and shift arguments to how Tottenham’s team cafeteria actually has chefs that worked at the same Gordon Ramsey restaurants as the Chelsea and Man City chefs did before they moved on, clearly big spender club stuff

Actually what you said was Spurs were not a big money behemoth. What I said was they weren't Little Sisters of the Poor, and that they are a big money team. Some of you misread that as Spurs spend among the most money. I then used a Net Spending example, among several other things to point out that Mourinho went to a big money team.

Being a big money team doesn't mean you spend the most money.

[jesmu84]

You literally said twice they spent comparable chelsea on players.

I acknowledge and agree with all of the rest of your points.

[shoothoops]

You literally said twice they spent comparable chelsea on players.

I acknowledge and agree with all of the rest of your points.

Net Spend is what I said in multiple posts:

https://twitter.com/RealKevinPalmer/status/1269396951981834240?s=19

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Net Spend is what I said in multiple posts:

https://twitter.com/RealKevinPalmer/status/1269396951981834240?s=19

Great but your chart is from before chelsea dumped 200m+ this past summer and during their transfer ban.

[shoothoops]

Great but your chart is from before chelsea dumped 200m+ this past summer and during their transfer ban.

Great, but that isn't what I said.

I made it clear that I was referencing Net Spending during the five year period I mentioned.

[Pakuni]

Great, but that isn't what I said.

I made it clear that I was referencing Net Spending during the five year period I mentioned.

Last thing I'll post on this, but you didn't..You changed to net only after we pointed out that your original remarks were wrong.

[shoothoops]

Last thing I'll post on this, but you didn't..You changed to net only after we pointed out that your original remarks were wrong.

That's incorrect. I was referencing Net Spending the entire time. I didn't change anything. When I mentioned it multiple times, you and others just kept ignoring it because you weren't interested in Net Spending. It isn't a Christmas Miracle that the Net Spending from the particular five year period I mentioned is correct/similar.

You posted six times about the same one thing, uninterested in Net Spending, despite my mentioning it multiple times, despite my also mentioning the source of my information when asked. (before anyone made a single comment)

You even said buying isn't selling etc... You were also uninterested over six posts in the actual main topic of my post, nor any other parts to it.  And you seemed to incorrectly conclude that I said Tottenham would all of a sudden be among the biggest spenders, even though I never said that. What I did say, is that they are a big money club (they are) and that they have doubled revenues, (they have) increased various spending investments, (this too) and that Mourinho went to a club that is "Not exactly Little Sisters of the Poor" (also true)

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Chelsea's net spend is an interesting hill to die upon.

You're right.  The whole time, you were right.  Way to be.