Truth be told, only Eriksen and Chadli can be said to have 'paid back' their price tags, and then some. I still don't think Lamela - as important as he is - looks like a £30m player. He is very close to reaching that level but this season hasn't panned out too well for him due to injuries and domestic problems. The other 4 were an absolute waste of time, money and work permits. Although I do have a soft spot for Soldado - top geezer.
Rough stats: Bale cash = £86m Capoue 9m sold for 6m = -3m Soldado 26m sold for 10m = -16m Chadli 7m sold for 13m = +6m Chiriches 8.5m sold for 4.5m = -4m Paulinho 17m sold for 10m = -7m Lamela 26m - current value (when fit?) £30-35m Eriksen 11.5m - current value £50m Total outlay in Summer 2013: £105m Total sales balance: £-24m Valuation balance of 2 remaining players: £+43-48m Overall: Nominal gain of between £19-24m and the best young team in the PL. So I would say that's not the worst return ever!!
The thing is about all that Bale outlay money, 2 things need to be recognised: 1. Did the players improve your team and push you onto things - Eriksen yes, arguably chadli and lamela ( i dont think they've had much impact) 2. from the past 4 years, most players you buy (as long as they were young enough) would mean that you tend to make money on them as the new TV money has increased alongside sponsorship so anyone bought years ago even if they flopped should theoretically get you a profit - case in point: - Benteke flopped bad pool got their money back - Chelsea have been stock piling loads of youth and selling for profit - When you have the likes of "potential" leaving on big money when they have proved nothing e.g. 15m Ibe, 6m Brad Smith, 50m Sterling, 50m Stones, the reported 30m for Igalo, Oscar for 60m and he's a ****ing reserve!. The sum you got for Bale was phenomenal and Wanyama and Alderweireld you absolutely smashed it getting them for so cheap. I was very surprised myself especially when you had the likes of Allen moving for 15m. Xhaka for 33m, Wijnaldum for 25m and Sissoko for 30m
The point of the stats was to directly link to the often-quoted Bale cash 'mIs-spending'. As such the overall return has been good when you factor in the current valuations of Eriksen & Lamela, plus as Power mentions above, the quality that they have brought in the pitch. If a club buys 6 players over a year or 18 months and 3 or 4 don't work out and get moved on then no one bats an eye. Do the same in one window and it's a disaster apparently! The transfer policy the last 3 years (Jan 14>) has been exceptional with the acquisition of the likes of Dier, Toby, Wanyama & Dele - and appears to have been specifically to build a young squad rather than stock piling etc. Personally, I am very happy with the direction we are going and the policies being adopted to grow the club.
I think that a lot of people underestimate Lamela's importance to our side and it's philosophy, especially non-Spurs fans. He went from a lightweight winger who was easily pushed around and bullied to being one of the bullies. He's embraced Pochettino's methods very quickly and leads the charge in many games. Does he score or assist enough for a player in his role? Probably not. He puts the opposition on the back foot a lot, though and he intimidates players out of the game, which sounds ludicrous when you look at him. He looks like the stereotype of the modern, pampered footballer, then he crunches a defender and watches him limp off! This is from last February, but it illustrates the point: please log in to view this image We haven't used the high press as consistently this season, but he's important to it when we do and it's good to have that option. It's one of the most effective ways to prevent quality sides from using their best players well.
I was just adding a different slant to the picture rather than the bale money was mis-spent. the 7m-12m signings back then are probably more like the 12- 16m signings of this year. lamela and soldado at 25m is probably your 35m signings
I know what you are saying.... and he suits Poches style of football in terms of his stamina and aggressiveness. It's not so much the end product that is lacking but for someone who has as many skills as Lamela, he sure doesn't use it properly (i know in the past he used to dwell on the ball, havent seen too much of him lately) and he doesn't use his brain properly so to speak (although i wouldn't out him into the welbecks and ibes who i think are brainless). His biggest asset to the team at the moment is his work rate and you'd want a bit more than that for a winger who cost 27m 3 years ago. Someone like Mane... even son cost less than him last year. If lamela had come in at 15m, that no one would be complaining. Likewise for Sissoko but hes cost you 30m and for that money you would expect a bit more...
Would agree with you on this. It is very frustrating to watch a player who has the skill to be a 'magician' (e.g. the rabona a couple seasons ago) but doesn't show those skills often enough. It's to his credit however that he doesn't shirk the hard yards. Personally think this is a better goal than the much-lauded 'scorpion' goal/s - but I'm probably biased!
Son's value is pretty difficult to work out, as he's worth more than just a normal player because of who he is. I'm glad that he's not just another Asian marketing ploy who can't contribute on the pitch, though. Not quite there yet, but he's a good squad player and could still step up that extra level, I think. I thought that we'd be looking at Mane, to be honest. He'd get murdered by the media if he wore a Spurs shirt, as he dives a lot and commits some bloody awful fouls, but he's very good. Even at £35m, I expected there to be more competition for his signature. Hope Senegal have a nice, long African Nations! Lamela directly contributed to 21 goals for us last season, apparently. Not quite up there with the best in the division, but still a pretty handy contribution: City (3), Monaco (4), Man Utd (2), Arsenal (2), Chelsea, Fiorentina... quite a lot of top names on that list. Might not do it consistently enough. Seems important for big games, though.
If anything, we did better than those figures suggest. The most obvious is Soldado, as we simply didn't pay £26m for him, as the deal was £13m + add-ons. While he may have activated one of his clauses due to making 52 Premier League appearances in his time with us, he most certainly did not activate likely clauses for goals scored (unless Levy was drunk and specified that we'd pay after seven league goals and/or eleven goals in all competitions for a season), and as it's probable there was a clause of our qualifying for the Champions League that most certainly was not triggered. The quoted fees for Chiriches are a little off, too: the fee was reportedly £6.7m + add-ons, while the Napoli fee was £3.5m up front + £1.4m in add-ons (and with Napoli playing in this season's CL at least one of those has been activated) Then there's the stories that were doing the rounds that Paulinho's fee was tied to the Brazilian real, and with Brazil's economy tanking shortly after we signed him that meant the installments we were paying were a lot cheaper than they would have been, meaning that we ended up paying closer to £13m for him than £17m This soon begins to add up, as that means our actual spend was somewhere between £13-19m less than the one that is quoted by tabloid hacks and Brendan Rodgers - and as a result, the losses incurred are much lower.
Oh yeah, in case anyone was interested... Our team cost £1m to put together, and that's Lopez's reported loan fee The cost of Chelsea's is the crushing feeling that each and every one of them are wasting their time, as the only reason they're playing is because the club isn't loaning them to the footballing wastelands every season in the hope of making some decent money off of them
Must admit it never really crossed my mind at the time, I was too in the moment of loving the scoreline, atmosphere and just seeing Roberts talk greatly about the club that nothing was actually registering when he mentioned how and when he signed .
I don't know, it's not outside the realms of possibility that Bill Nick had time travelling capabilities. That's why he became so disillusioned with the club, not because of the rise of hooliganism, but he'd just returned from 25 years in the future and the worst of the Sugar Error...sorry, Era.
It's not the price paid that really determines whether a player has been a good signing. If Alli or Alderweireld had cost £30M each, they'd still be good signings; conversely, Paulinho or Soldado on free transfers still wouldn't have been worthwhile. How well the books have been balanced or not doesn't necessarily add much to any argument. The more recent signings have helped Spurs step up a level because of how well they have performed individually, but more importantly because they have significantly enhanced the overall strength of the team. The team is much better than the one which finished the 2014/15 season. Alderweireld is part of a great central defensive partnership (and defensively solid title chasing teams have always had strong pairs of defenders). Even on off days, the team doesn't look like conceding goals, yet prior to Alderweireld's arrival, there was a longstanding defensive vulnerability. Alli gets forward from midfield into pockets of space and scores plenty of goals. Players who can do that are rare - and priceless.. Goals from players other than a main striker has been a problem, even very recently. Spurs are so much more potent when Alli carries a goal threat as the last few results show.
It's certainly not the be all and end all - and take the point about the relative values of Alli and Alderweirald. However, when a club has managed to progress over a period (on and off the field) and still be in profit in its transfer business is to be acknowledged. Particularly when that club doesn't have either the match day revenues or a bottomless pit owners of its rivals.