We’d have sold for nowhere near 150mil.
Spurs could have rebuilt their entire dog shit squad with the Kane money. Keeping him wasn’t the smart play
2 Likes
What’s that based on though? We refused to sell ESR in the summer and Villa were offering generous sums for him. We wouldn’t sell someone we didn’t want to sell.
Yep. Such stupid decision making from them because he’s clearly past his best
It was a crap sum. In the region of 50mil, wasn’t it?
And it’s based on the Aubameyang saga, and if we want to go further back, the way we sold RvC and Henry
£50m for an unproven academy talent is a generous sum of money. I don’t even think they went that high.
And Auba was totally different, he didn’t have a market outside of a Saudi club willing to pay a nominal fee. You can’t sell someone who doesn’t have a market.
And the team that sold RVP and Henry don’t exist anymore. We’ve literally gone through two or three cycles of directors / management set up since those teams.
Hmm see you say that, but you do wonder who they can get in for 150mil nowadays. Maybe 3 very good players? 2 elite players? Is that going to change their fortunes dramatically on the pitch?
It’s just not the same as when they sold Bale and bought a whole new squad in, effectively. The financial climate has changed.
In fact, I honestly think the smart play was what they did in keeping him. It was very close to transfer deadline day, Spurs didn’t have a replacement lined up, and they gave a ballsy fuck you to Man City. He’s actually scoring when he plays now, too.
This is light years from our Auba situation. Willing Barcelona to sign him for free while we don’t have a replacement. If Auba had stayed, would he have been scoring goals for us?
1 Like
Manchester City offering them some cash plus two very high quality players. They had a run at Silva, Laporte, Jesus as far as I can remember. Any two of those, especially the first two, make a dramatic difference to Spurs quality.
If they used the remaining Kane money plus other allocated money they could have easily signed another 2-3 players.
Imagine if they went into the season with Romero and Laporte at CB and had Bernardo Silva playing in an attacking midfield role instead.
Spurs fortunes would be dramatically different if they sold Kane, took two of City’s players, signed a few more and brought in Conte.
1 Like
Just pulling some names out of a hat here but for 150m they could have bought some fresh young talent like, White, Tomiyasu, Ramsdale, and had money to spare.
I guess it all depends on if Kane gets them top 4 this season. If he does then fair enough but it’s not sustainable to continually rely on their aging talisman.
1 Like
We somehow would have found a way to burn down the Emirates I reckon.
True.
What’s he got, about 2 full years left on his contract?
Levy and Conte have won fuck all for Spurs and long may it continue, I won’t give them praise or credit for anything, it’s a prerequisite for being an Arsenal fan.
So fuck Spurs and everything and everyone to do with them.
2 Likes
The level of incompetence shown by our owner in his decision making is astonishing.
But the level of ambition shown by him since he arrived is not much better
The continued lack of investment for more than a decade saw us fall behind the top teams and smaller clubs like spurs, West Ham and others have caught us up.
It’s only in the last couple of seasons we have seen the club start investing and even then it’s only papering over the cracks.
Any responsible, ambitious owner of a top European club should be trying to buy the best players and have the best manager and it seems we have bucked that trend and down the opposite.
We used to have world class players but they’ve all gone and we’re left with “potential” and the worst manager we’ve had.
That’s not ambition, it’s sheer incompetence.
1 Like
But you were saying Spurs are a better run club which is clearly not true, but if you are comparing us with Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool then I would have to agree with you.
2 Likes
I don’t think they’re better run but they do show more ambition and have an owner who will do what it takes to finish above us, which is how it should be.
I want an owner who understands what it is to be an actual supporter of our club rather than an investor.
Well I don’t equate ambition with having an endless succession of failed managers, Conte excepted so far and he’s not gonna stay.
If Spurs idea of being ambitious is just finishing above us is ambitious it doesn’t say a lot about them either.
As for having an owner who is a fan of the club and actually understands what supporters want from the club, that doesn’t exist. We are now a corporate business and any owner will run it as one, unless you want us to be run as a rich man’s plaything to launder his ill gotten gains.
3 Likes
So you in effect want an Arsenal version of Bill Kenwright at Everton then.
As I said, having ambition doesn’t necessarily equate to success.
They have had failed managers but they’ve had Pochettino, Mourinho and Conte while we’ve persisted with Arteta, so who is showing more ambition and urgency?
I agree but our owner is not even a fan of football, let alone Arsenal, at least spurs have an owner who cares about the club, even if his decision making is useless.
Anyone who buys a PL football club is going to have got his money through dubious business deals. So if the only way to compete with the big teams is to be be a rich mans play thing, then why not?
1 Like
I want an owner who understands what it’s like to be a supporter and see the best for the club.
Maybe Kenwright and Levy aren’t very good decision makers but at least they care about their clubs.
I’m not sure that Kroenke could care less about anything other than owning a profitable investment.
1 Like
All a bit of a fallacy though isnt it. Levy is an egotistical control freak. The Hill Woods had this stuff thrown at them too.
I can remember when David Dein was hated over that bond scheme. Money, ego and success all in the mix with all the off field decision makers at every club.
3 Likes