Spurs Banter Archive March 06 2011

 

Use our rumours form to send us spurs transfer rumours.

06 Mar 2011 23:27:32
Yeah but Jermain, Spurs are still better than Arsenal because Spurs are behind Arsenal in the league. Can't you see? Not so cocky are we now Germain! Idiot. You are a tool. Ripped apart by a pack of WOLVES!

SAME OLD TOTTENHAM ALWAYS CHEATING.

Ben

Believable0 Unbelievable0

06 Mar 2011 23:22:25
Hehe, always fun coming on here for a giggle. Re. the post at 18:17, i truly hope english is not your mother tongue.

Unknown players. .which turn into Fabregas, v.Persie, Henry. Idiot. Anyway big players join Arsenal as well; Arshavin, Bergkamp, Nasri. .

Only 9 points behind in the league. Chins up.

Haha power really shifted? I think not.

Ben

Believable0 Unbelievable0

06 Mar 2011 18:09:02
We can't keep on resting 3 players because we have a champions league match in the next fixture. this is killing us. harry should have played them from the start and taken them off towards the end. blackpool and wolves and we only managed to take a point.
4th is looking futher away now.


jermain

Believable0 Unbelievable0

06 Mar 2011 13:15:36
If you seriously believe that Spurs couldnt afford to pay him over £100,000 a week then you are living in Cloud Cuckoo land. The club is wealthy, solvent and relatively debt free. Its fair to say that Spurs are only one of a handful of clubs who could afford that kind of wage.
I suspect that Deano95 pertains to the fact that you were born in 1995 making you a whole 16 years old. Perhaps you ought to grow up before you start making silly statements. . .better still ask for the ed to comment on your post, he would have put you right on this one.

{Ed002's Note - It is not just £100k per week - it is £100k plus per week after tax. It equates to something in the order of £200k per week.}

Ok your just being pedantic there is no way Spurs could afford wages of £100k per week because as stated above when taxes are added

it would become £200k per week, any player on that amount of money must be a huge drain on the clubs finances unless you are Man city
with a very rich owner or Man Utd who average 75, 304 per home game the last time i looked Spurs were 39th in the Average attendances of European football clubs
with 35, 929 per home game and theres also the chance that you won't finish in a champions league postion so your revenue wouldn't support such deal being done

oh and by the way i wasnt born 1n 1995 im a lot older than that

Deano95

Deano, if you are "a lot older than that" you best start acting your age then.
IF home attendances were wholly relevent to the available finances for wages and/ or purchasing of players, Tottenhams spending in the last few years would have been utterly impossible to acheive without bankrupcy. Between 2008 and 2010 they had spent around £150million on transfers! Even the sales of Carrick and Berbatov raising some £46 million would not have impeded that kind of spending just on playing staff and NOT on new training facilities and NOT on purchasing land around WHL for the redevelopment of the ground. .
As you have taken the time to research the average attendances table ( which is irrelevent as it also shows Eintract Frankfurt, Hannover SV and Feyernoord above us yet in no position to compete with us financially, blowing your argument right out of the water ) you may also like to Google Joe Lewis the Billionaire business man who really controls Tottenhams purse strings ( no its not Levy!) Certainly not as rich as some of the owners of premiership clubs but, nonetheless, he is a BIG fish. Using your analogy would suggest that Everton would be on a par with us financially and Celtic would out bid us time and time again for players. The reality is, however, both said clubs are in a poor financial state. Again, attendences which YOU have made the focal point of the reason why spurs could not afford to pay £200K per week are clearly NOT the main reason nor the ultimate consideration in player purchasing and/ or wages.
We may well have lower average attendences than 38 other clubs but, strangely we are considerably richer than many of those same clubs above us, as the facts would prove.
Reality check? Very few Premiership clubs could afford to pay that kind of wage. Spurs ARE one of those clubs that COULD affored to but WONT do it as, yes, it puts a financial strain on a club AND may have other players knocking on the door demanding wage rises, thus putting up the whole wage bill. Thats why Spurs WONT pay that kind of wage and Manchester Utd were utterly stupid in allowing Rooney a new deal and salary that he isn't worth!
Fact, there are VERY FEW players who could be worth £200k per week and, Im honest enough to admit it, would be going to WHL anyway.
Oh, one more thing. Our club has outspent most other clubs in the Premiership and Europe over the last few years and have done so WITHOUT Champions league money. This season alone, irrespective of whether they secure a top four finish or not, they will have earned enough to have a huge budget at the end of the season.
Say what you like, very few clubs are so well managed by financially astute people.

Believable0 Unbelievable0