*enters thread.....leaves thread.
Jesus...Suso....
- Thread starter Modo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Shit-so
[quote author=Modo link=topic=43540.msg1256427#msg1256427 date=1295390418]
[quote author=Niall K link=topic=43540.msg1256420#msg1256420 date=1295390223]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=43540.msg1256418#msg1256418 date=1295390107]
Wonder what Brendan is gonna call Suso if he fails:
Sucko?
Cunto?
Frodo?
[/quote]
When he sees that list he might have a few names for you.
[/quote]
I'm already "the posters thats wrong about everything" and a cunt, so it's OK.
[/quote]
How did you leap frog me in that list?
[quote author=Niall K link=topic=43540.msg1256420#msg1256420 date=1295390223]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=43540.msg1256418#msg1256418 date=1295390107]
Wonder what Brendan is gonna call Suso if he fails:
Sucko?
Cunto?
Frodo?
[/quote]
When he sees that list he might have a few names for you.
[/quote]
I'm already "the posters thats wrong about everything" and a cunt, so it's OK.
[/quote]
How did you leap frog me in that list?
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=43540.msg1256280#msg1256280 date=1295377805]
Serious question, has aurelio ever had a REALLY disasterous game at left back?
[/quote]
Man City away 2/3 years ago when Kuyt got the winner in the 3-2 game (I think).
He got absolutely raped, spitroasted, arse-fingers, and ear-hole fucked by SWP. SCM was up in arms after it.
Serious question, has aurelio ever had a REALLY disasterous game at left back?
[/quote]
Man City away 2/3 years ago when Kuyt got the winner in the 3-2 game (I think).
He got absolutely raped, spitroasted, arse-fingers, and ear-hole fucked by SWP. SCM was up in arms after it.
[quote author=Dreambeliever link=topic=43540.msg1256565#msg1256565 date=1295397254]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=43540.msg1256427#msg1256427 date=1295390418]
[quote author=Niall K link=topic=43540.msg1256420#msg1256420 date=1295390223]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=43540.msg1256418#msg1256418 date=1295390107]
Wonder what Brendan is gonna call Suso if he fails:
Sucko?
Cunto?
Frodo?
[/quote]
When he sees that list he might have a few names for you.
[/quote]
I'm already "the posters thats wrong about everything" and a cunt, so it's OK.
[/quote]
How did you leap frog me in that list?
[/quote]
Dunno really.
[quote author=Modo link=topic=43540.msg1256427#msg1256427 date=1295390418]
[quote author=Niall K link=topic=43540.msg1256420#msg1256420 date=1295390223]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=43540.msg1256418#msg1256418 date=1295390107]
Wonder what Brendan is gonna call Suso if he fails:
Sucko?
Cunto?
Frodo?
[/quote]
When he sees that list he might have a few names for you.
[/quote]
I'm already "the posters thats wrong about everything" and a cunt, so it's OK.
[/quote]
How did you leap frog me in that list?
[/quote]
Dunno really.
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=43540.msg1256595#msg1256595 date=1295402307]
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=43540.msg1256280#msg1256280 date=1295377805]
Serious question, has aurelio ever had a REALLY disasterous game at left back?
[/quote]
Man City away 2/3 years ago when Kuyt got the winner in the 3-2 game (I think).
He got absolutely raped, spitroasted, arse-fingers, and ear-hole fucked by SWP. SCM was up in arms after it.
[/quote]
You have a good memory.
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=43540.msg1256280#msg1256280 date=1295377805]
Serious question, has aurelio ever had a REALLY disasterous game at left back?
[/quote]
Man City away 2/3 years ago when Kuyt got the winner in the 3-2 game (I think).
He got absolutely raped, spitroasted, arse-fingers, and ear-hole fucked by SWP. SCM was up in arms after it.
[/quote]
You have a good memory.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43540.msg1256511#msg1256511 date=1295394665]
i never said either of those had nothing to do with benitez. maybe you want to disagree with something i actually said next time?
for the record, though, and just to start you off, i'm still a little confused as to why he takes the blame for the size of our wage bill. you really think managing the club's single biggest budget came within his remit? or maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that it was someone above him that sanctioned deals like glen johnson's £100k a week? by the same token, i guess you credit martin jol and sergio ramos with spurs' excellent finances?
sorry to be testing these theories of yours with anything so cunning as basic common sense btw.
[/quote]
I credit Commoli and Arnesen with Spur's excellent finances, they're dealings are what put Spurs in the position it's in today. Redknapp will ruin it all thankfully.
Your "analysis" is missing the point, you'll have to point out where the common sense is. There is a strong correlation between the size of the wage bill and final league position. As mentioned before we now spend 120m on our wages, we've consistently been the fourth biggest wage bill spenders yet last year we finished 7th and this year we'll finish lower. The reason for that is the money was and is being misspent. That's largely down to Benitez and those that trusted his judgment.
Wages / turnover ratio is useful for attempting to predict which clubs have the capacity to add to their squad significantly. I don't see what it tells us apart from that
i never said either of those had nothing to do with benitez. maybe you want to disagree with something i actually said next time?
for the record, though, and just to start you off, i'm still a little confused as to why he takes the blame for the size of our wage bill. you really think managing the club's single biggest budget came within his remit? or maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that it was someone above him that sanctioned deals like glen johnson's £100k a week? by the same token, i guess you credit martin jol and sergio ramos with spurs' excellent finances?
sorry to be testing these theories of yours with anything so cunning as basic common sense btw.
[/quote]
I credit Commoli and Arnesen with Spur's excellent finances, they're dealings are what put Spurs in the position it's in today. Redknapp will ruin it all thankfully.
Your "analysis" is missing the point, you'll have to point out where the common sense is. There is a strong correlation between the size of the wage bill and final league position. As mentioned before we now spend 120m on our wages, we've consistently been the fourth biggest wage bill spenders yet last year we finished 7th and this year we'll finish lower. The reason for that is the money was and is being misspent. That's largely down to Benitez and those that trusted his judgment.
Wages / turnover ratio is useful for attempting to predict which clubs have the capacity to add to their squad significantly. I don't see what it tells us apart from that
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43540.msg1256677#msg1256677 date=1295426288]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43540.msg1256511#msg1256511 date=1295394665]
i never said either of those had nothing to do with benitez. maybe you want to disagree with something i actually said next time?
for the record, though, and just to start you off, i'm still a little confused as to why he takes the blame for the size of our wage bill. you really think managing the club's single biggest budget came within his remit? or maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that it was someone above him that sanctioned deals like glen johnson's £100k a week? by the same token, i guess you credit martin jol and sergio ramos with spurs' excellent finances?
sorry to be testing these theories of yours with anything so cunning as basic common sense btw.
[/quote]
I credit Commoli and Arnesen with Spur's excellent finances, they're dealings are what put Spurs in the position it's in today. Redknapp will ruin it all thankfully.
Your "analysis" is missing the point, you'll have to point out where the common sense is. There is a strong correlation between the size of the wage bill and final league position. As mentioned before we now spend 120m on our wages, we've consistently been the fourth biggest wage bill spenders yet last year we finished 7th and this year we'll finish lower. The reason for that is the money was and is being misspent. That's largely down to Benitez and those that trusted his judgment.
Wages / turnover ratio is useful for attempting to predict which clubs have the capacity to add to their squad significantly. I don't see what it tells us apart from that
[/quote]
That's not quite the whole picture though is it Ross?
1) It's probably fair to say that Benitez was prevented from buying a fair few players he'd wanted (we all know the usual suspects) and had to settle for cut-price alternatives at times (Riera, Pennant, Aurelio, Voronin etc). His first couple of seasons were spent wheeler-dealing members of the squad for small individual improvements, rather than the easier route of splashing out on players to add to what he'd inherited. He was also liklely prevented from buying highly promising young players (due to transfer fee constraints) such as Ramsay and Walcott - two players that would have improved the squad on relatively small wages. A fair few of his cut-price freebies would have commanded high wages (instead of a transfer fee) so the overall wage level was similar to that it would have been had Rafa signed more expensive players, but without the huge leap in quality. In conclusion, net spend is at least as important as wage levels.
2) If you look over his tenure as a whole, one 7th place is more than balanced out by the other league placings for a side with the 4th largest wage bill.
3) I'd argue we wouldn't have been looking at a below-7th finish this season has Hodgson not taken charge last summer, so it's unfair to lay the blame solely at Rafa's feet for this seasons woes.
That's not to say that Rafa didn't make some relatively (to his previous successes) awful dealings in his last year or so in charge (Keane, Aquilani etc). However even in the latter case (Aquilani) there have been recent suggestions that Roma's outstanding debt to us (from the Riise transfer) meant that a staggered deal with Roma was one of only a few options open to Rafa (due to financial constraints) to replace Alonso for an initial 2-3m outlay.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43540.msg1256511#msg1256511 date=1295394665]
i never said either of those had nothing to do with benitez. maybe you want to disagree with something i actually said next time?
for the record, though, and just to start you off, i'm still a little confused as to why he takes the blame for the size of our wage bill. you really think managing the club's single biggest budget came within his remit? or maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that it was someone above him that sanctioned deals like glen johnson's £100k a week? by the same token, i guess you credit martin jol and sergio ramos with spurs' excellent finances?
sorry to be testing these theories of yours with anything so cunning as basic common sense btw.
[/quote]
I credit Commoli and Arnesen with Spur's excellent finances, they're dealings are what put Spurs in the position it's in today. Redknapp will ruin it all thankfully.
Your "analysis" is missing the point, you'll have to point out where the common sense is. There is a strong correlation between the size of the wage bill and final league position. As mentioned before we now spend 120m on our wages, we've consistently been the fourth biggest wage bill spenders yet last year we finished 7th and this year we'll finish lower. The reason for that is the money was and is being misspent. That's largely down to Benitez and those that trusted his judgment.
Wages / turnover ratio is useful for attempting to predict which clubs have the capacity to add to their squad significantly. I don't see what it tells us apart from that
[/quote]
That's not quite the whole picture though is it Ross?
1) It's probably fair to say that Benitez was prevented from buying a fair few players he'd wanted (we all know the usual suspects) and had to settle for cut-price alternatives at times (Riera, Pennant, Aurelio, Voronin etc). His first couple of seasons were spent wheeler-dealing members of the squad for small individual improvements, rather than the easier route of splashing out on players to add to what he'd inherited. He was also liklely prevented from buying highly promising young players (due to transfer fee constraints) such as Ramsay and Walcott - two players that would have improved the squad on relatively small wages. A fair few of his cut-price freebies would have commanded high wages (instead of a transfer fee) so the overall wage level was similar to that it would have been had Rafa signed more expensive players, but without the huge leap in quality. In conclusion, net spend is at least as important as wage levels.
2) If you look over his tenure as a whole, one 7th place is more than balanced out by the other league placings for a side with the 4th largest wage bill.
3) I'd argue we wouldn't have been looking at a below-7th finish this season has Hodgson not taken charge last summer, so it's unfair to lay the blame solely at Rafa's feet for this seasons woes.
That's not to say that Rafa didn't make some relatively (to his previous successes) awful dealings in his last year or so in charge (Keane, Aquilani etc). However even in the latter case (Aquilani) there have been recent suggestions that Roma's outstanding debt to us (from the Riise transfer) meant that a staggered deal with Roma was one of only a few options open to Rafa (due to financial constraints) to replace Alonso for an initial 2-3m outlay.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=43540.msg1256677#msg1256677 date=1295426288]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43540.msg1256511#msg1256511 date=1295394665]
i never said either of those had nothing to do with benitez. maybe you want to disagree with something i actually said next time?
for the record, though, and just to start you off, i'm still a little confused as to why he takes the blame for the size of our wage bill. you really think managing the club's single biggest budget came within his remit? or maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that it was someone above him that sanctioned deals like glen johnson's £100k a week? by the same token, i guess you credit martin jol and sergio ramos with spurs' excellent finances?
sorry to be testing these theories of yours with anything so cunning as basic common sense btw.
[/quote]
I credit Commoli and Arnesen with Spur's excellent finances, they're dealings are what put Spurs in the position it's in today. Redknapp will ruin it all thankfully.
Your "analysis" is missing the point, you'll have to point out where the common sense is. There is a strong correlation between the size of the wage bill and final league position. As mentioned before we now spend 120m on our wages, we've consistently been the fourth biggest wage bill spenders yet last year we finished 7th and this year we'll finish lower. The reason for that is the money was and is being misspent. That's largely down to Benitez and those that trusted his judgment.
Wages / turnover ratio is useful for attempting to predict which clubs have the capacity to add to their squad significantly. I don't see what it tells us apart from that
[/quote]
1. wages/turnover to me seems the crucial figure for analysing how well a club's managing its costs, because the nature of the business of football means that gross wages are going to vary very proportionately with turnover: it's very difficult to keep a cap on that cost if you want to remain remotely competitive (even spurs % seems to have stayed relatively constant, meaning that their gross wages are increasing in line with their turnover). it's no good saying 'oh fuck, we're spending £120m on wages, that's double what we were paying a decade ago!' if the club's turnover has also doubled. that's the economic reality of an industry in which success is judged on points and trophies won rather than net profits.
2. i made the common sense jibe because, honestly, i didn't really consider the possibility that you'd credit spurs' sound finances with people on the footballing side of the business. i hope i'm wrong, but i don't personally see any chance of redknapp being able to affect the sustainability of the club's costs; except perhaps to the extent that his success on the field in making their players champions league commodoties pushes up their wage demands to the level of their new competitors like man utd and arsenal. that's when it could get interesting, imo: when spurs' finances are tested against the need to truly compete with the big boys that we were competing with under benitez - when gareth bale and luca modric are demanding the £130k a week from spurs that they'll be offered elsewhere.
3. i agree that we underachieved last year compared to our wage bill, that's clear enough. so benitez takes the blame for that footballing failure (and the credit for the occasions we've done better than 4th in terms of league position and CL success, as in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009) - surely that's different, though, from blaming him for the actual size of the wage bill, and for certain players being overpaid, isn't it? i just don't see how he's responsible for managing that.
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=43540.msg1256511#msg1256511 date=1295394665]
i never said either of those had nothing to do with benitez. maybe you want to disagree with something i actually said next time?
for the record, though, and just to start you off, i'm still a little confused as to why he takes the blame for the size of our wage bill. you really think managing the club's single biggest budget came within his remit? or maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that it was someone above him that sanctioned deals like glen johnson's £100k a week? by the same token, i guess you credit martin jol and sergio ramos with spurs' excellent finances?
sorry to be testing these theories of yours with anything so cunning as basic common sense btw.
[/quote]
I credit Commoli and Arnesen with Spur's excellent finances, they're dealings are what put Spurs in the position it's in today. Redknapp will ruin it all thankfully.
Your "analysis" is missing the point, you'll have to point out where the common sense is. There is a strong correlation between the size of the wage bill and final league position. As mentioned before we now spend 120m on our wages, we've consistently been the fourth biggest wage bill spenders yet last year we finished 7th and this year we'll finish lower. The reason for that is the money was and is being misspent. That's largely down to Benitez and those that trusted his judgment.
Wages / turnover ratio is useful for attempting to predict which clubs have the capacity to add to their squad significantly. I don't see what it tells us apart from that
[/quote]
1. wages/turnover to me seems the crucial figure for analysing how well a club's managing its costs, because the nature of the business of football means that gross wages are going to vary very proportionately with turnover: it's very difficult to keep a cap on that cost if you want to remain remotely competitive (even spurs % seems to have stayed relatively constant, meaning that their gross wages are increasing in line with their turnover). it's no good saying 'oh fuck, we're spending £120m on wages, that's double what we were paying a decade ago!' if the club's turnover has also doubled. that's the economic reality of an industry in which success is judged on points and trophies won rather than net profits.
2. i made the common sense jibe because, honestly, i didn't really consider the possibility that you'd credit spurs' sound finances with people on the footballing side of the business. i hope i'm wrong, but i don't personally see any chance of redknapp being able to affect the sustainability of the club's costs; except perhaps to the extent that his success on the field in making their players champions league commodoties pushes up their wage demands to the level of their new competitors like man utd and arsenal. that's when it could get interesting, imo: when spurs' finances are tested against the need to truly compete with the big boys that we were competing with under benitez - when gareth bale and luca modric are demanding the £130k a week from spurs that they'll be offered elsewhere.
3. i agree that we underachieved last year compared to our wage bill, that's clear enough. so benitez takes the blame for that footballing failure (and the credit for the occasions we've done better than 4th in terms of league position and CL success, as in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009) - surely that's different, though, from blaming him for the actual size of the wage bill, and for certain players being overpaid, isn't it? i just don't see how he's responsible for managing that.
If Ross' point is merely that the wage bill is too high, then I think the wages bill as a proportion to turnover is correct. But i think his point is poor utilisation of funds rather than merely size of it.
As for the size of the bill, Rafa clearly has little say in personal terms ie salary issues and other contractual benefits.
If Rafa says I want Aquilani, he wouldnt care whether he was being paid 10k a week or 80k a week.
And we have already seen that some of Rafa's targets were unsuccessful precisely because the fee requested was too high or an agreement in personalk terms couldnt be reached.
So if the issue is whether or not our lawyers and negotiators share some of the blame, then the answer is probably yes.
But these are still players Rafa wanted, and there's only so much tough guy tactics than can be employed if you really want a player.
As for the size of the bill, Rafa clearly has little say in personal terms ie salary issues and other contractual benefits.
If Rafa says I want Aquilani, he wouldnt care whether he was being paid 10k a week or 80k a week.
And we have already seen that some of Rafa's targets were unsuccessful precisely because the fee requested was too high or an agreement in personalk terms couldnt be reached.
So if the issue is whether or not our lawyers and negotiators share some of the blame, then the answer is probably yes.
But these are still players Rafa wanted, and there's only so much tough guy tactics than can be employed if you really want a player.
- Status
Similar threads
