Danny Rose

[milo]

So its not the google comment which you think would have insulted them, more the comment that we dont have enough quality in depth. I can understand that that might caused a few players outside the core 15-16 players who are genuine first choice calibre players (so people like GKN, Wimmer perhaps, maybe Janssen) but I dont see that the Google comment should offend anyone. Its pretty accurate...how many people knew much about Jeremy Toljan or Giovanni Simeone etc without googling them?

No. I think that the Google comment is insulting particularly to the younger or more recent additions to the squad. I think that it is insulting to players like Ali, Dier and Janssen.

It's all academic though because what he is saying is just designed to get him a big money move to a club that can afford to pay him more.

 

[Jordinho]

Could have sworn that this was mentioned on the forum this morning

View attachment 3501

The wages paid to the likes of Benteke and Hernandez are ridiculously high for clubs of that stature, but that's the only way to make those players come there. The wages paid to the likes of (goes to check google) Jason Puncheon and James Collins will be fairly low to make up for that. As I've said before, footballers aren't the brightest bunch. It's not about the highest earners, it's about how much we pay the squad in total.

 

[StephenH]

There's maybe a £100m to spend on fees and wages given the Walker money and the increase in TV money.

We have a wage structure where our highest paid players Kane and Lloris are on around the same as 100k wages as Troy Deeney at Watford. Across London Benteke is on 120k at Palace. At West Ham they have Javier Hernandez on 140k and Joe Hart on 120k(city paying another 55k).

There's only so many years our players will stay on these wages.

Don't be surprised to see them force they way out the same way Walker did through a row with Poch.

It is what it is.
All this continuous caterwauling about what other clubs are paying is tiring.

 

[Grays_1890]

Sure, fair enough. But they're not *every* pundit, is all.



Objectively? The objective of the game is to win trophies, finish first in competitions. That is the objective reality of it - a league is set up the way it is to enable 20 or so teams to compete to see who finishes top.

*Subjectively*, it's a whole different ballgame with love, morality, ethics, passion, marginal progress and risk versus reward coming and going at all sorts of weird places. But objectively, the game is about winning - all else is incidental.

And, objectively, City have blown us out of the water in terms of their model. They have won the Premier League. Twice. They have won cups. They have finished above us more than we have finished above them in the last few seasons.

That's what matters from an objective standpoint. When Aguero scored his last-minute, league-winning goal, not a single City fan in the stadium that day thought 'if only we could match Spurs' net spend!'. Again, subjectively it's a different story, and everyone has their own, valid view - but that's the fact of the matter.

So whats your solution? Go toe to toe with Sheikh Mansoor who is one of the worlds wealthiest men?

The fact is Emirates Marketing Project have no model, no money no party......

 

[AdamB]

No. I think that the Google comment is insulting particularly to the younger or more recent additions to the squad. I think that it is insulting to players like Ali, Dier and Janssen.

I really dont buy that. Eric Dier was an unheard of kid playing in Portugal when we signed him - he wouldnt have been offended if most Spurs players hadnt heard of him. Similarly with Dele - first season in League 2....understandable that he would have been unknown. Janssen I expect most had heard of, even if they needed to check youtube to check playing style etc. I just see many people who would have been offended by it. I think it was more referring to players we've been linked with this summer anyway

 

[glasgowspur]

Wherever he ends up I look forward to the spurs faithful shouting Google at him every time Dele nutmeg him.

As man u and Emirates Marketing Project aren't usually both successful in the same season either rose or walker aren't going to be happy at the end of the season.......
I hope it's both

 

[DubaiSpur]

So whats your solution? Go toe to toe with Sheikh Mansoor who is one of the worlds wealthiest men?

The fact is Emirates Marketing Project have no model, no money no party......

What do you mean, no model?

Their wages-to-turnover ratio is at 50%, iirc. As a percentage of their turnover,they spend less on their wages than we do, and less than Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea do (again, iirc).

Their model was to boost the club up to the level of the big boys quickly, and then *keep* them there without Mansour's money. They have succeeded on both counts.

What is *our* model, and why is it intrinsically better than theirs? We build infrastructure? They did too - quicker than us, and arguably better than we did (their youth training ground has a purpose-built *stadium*, just for the youth team). We finally broke into the top four? They did, too - a bit later than us, but once they did, they stayed there longer than we have (to date, anyway). We succeeded? They did, too - and won more than us, a lot more.

The objective fact of it is that we went slow and steady because we had no choice - or rather, Joe Lewis ensured that we had no other choice. There is nothing superior in our model compared to theirs in an objective sense - nothing. We just had no other choice because our owners unilaterally decided to leave us running that way. That's just the fact of it, mate - I'm not making a moral judgement either way, apart from pointing out that there really isn't a moral choice to be made if you're talking *objective* success of different models. That's all.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

What do you mean, no model?

Their wages-to-turnover ratio is at 50%, iirc. As a percentage of their turnover,they spend less on their wages than we do, and less than Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea do (again, iirc).

Their model was to boost the club up to the level of the big boys quickly, and then *keep* them there without Mansour's money. They have succeeded on both counts.

What is *our* model, and why is it intrinsically better than theirs? We build infrastructure? They did too - quicker than us, and arguably better than we did (their youth training ground has a purpose-built *stadium*, just for the youth team). We finally broke into the top four? They did, too - a bit later than us, but once they did, they stayed there longer than we have (to date, anyway). We succeeded? They did, too - and won more than us, a lot more.

The objective fact of it is that we went slow and steady because we had no choice - or rather, Joe Lewis ensured that we had no other choice. There is nothing superior in our model compared to theirs in an objective sense - nothing. We just had no other choice because our owners unilaterally decided to leave us running that way. That's just the fact of it, mate - I'm not making a moral judgement either way, apart from pointing out that there really isn't a moral choice to be made if you're talking *objective* success of different models. That's all.

It's only at 50% because of dodgy sponsorship deals and overpriced executive boxes !

 

[the dza]

So whats your solution? Go toe to toe with Sheikh Mansoor who is one of the worlds wealthiest men?

The fact is Emirates Marketing Project have no model, no money no party......

We just have to hope that the increase in revenue from the new stadium will allow us to pay wages that are high enough that our players will be happy to stay, even if they could earn more elsewhere. Say it allows our very top wage to increase from £100k (Harry Kane's money) to £200k -- the £200k figure might be enough to keep a player like Kane here, even though PSG can offer £1million a week or whatever stupid amount. It shows that our club value Kane more than Watford value Troy Deeney.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

A couple of other points on Rose:

The google comment is academic, as Milo says. It just isn't his job to identify who the club should spend money on. But he knows that. It's contradictory, it's wrong, it's just really bricky.

But I've just remembered the also hilarious idea that last year, it was Erik Lamela having to remind Rose that yes, this squad was good enough to win the league when they were out to dinner. A lot has sure changed in this last year. Rose wasn't the big time Charlie, 'I want to see these players that I don't have to Google' then, he was a humble kid that needed one of his team mates to tell him to believe in himself. Rose should be cringing at himself now. He isn't this guy, he just isn't.

 

[StephenH]

No. I think that the Google comment is insulting particularly to the younger or more recent additions to the squad. I think that it is insulting to players like Ali, Dier and Janssen.

It's all academic though because what he is saying is just designed to get him a big money move to a club that can afford to pay him more.

Bottom line for me was Rose was taking the rise big time and showing a lack of respect for everybody at the club.
if I was around the half wit I would give him a piece of my mind. But he is and always has been a little strange at times looking back, but I thought he had grown up. I was mistaken!

 

[DubaiSpur]

It's only at 50% because of dodgy sponsorship deals and overpriced executive boxes !

Sure, but it is what it is. You can't legally challenge them in any way on that. Their model is successful on the same metrics we use for our 'model', in an objective sense - success, infrastructure, fiscal health. So there's really no advantage to going our way over theirs in any objective sense - and there never was.

 

[the dza]

A couple of other points on Rose:

The google comment is academic, as Milo says. It just isn't his job to identify who the club should spend money on. But he knows that. It's contradictory, it's wrong, it's just really bricky.

But I've just remembered the also hilarious idea that last year, it was Erik Lamela having to remind Rose that yes, this squad was good enough to win the league when they were out to dinner. A lot has sure changed in this last year. Rose wasn't the big time Charlie, 'I want to see these players that I don't have to Google' then, he was a humble kid that needed one of his team mates to tell him to believe in himself. Rose should be cringing at himself now. He isn't this guy, he just isn't.

It's all about him wanting more money. The other stuff is bullsh1t to make people think he had no choice but to ask to leave. It's fair enough that he wants more money, but I'd respect it more if he just left it at that, rather than all this bluster about signings.

Engineer a move away without requesting a transfer is the done thing nowadays, got to keep that loyalty bonus!

 

[Grays_1890]

It's only at 50% because of dodgy sponsorship deals and overpriced executive boxes !

Yeh lets not forget that broke FFP rules and then pressured the powers to loosen them by hiring heavy lawyers. And in fact they are on the FFP watch list again.

 

[Raziel]

Danny should never be allowed to do interviews, he speaks his mind and it will always be interpreted in ways he/club don't really want.

He like Walker are neither Spurs nor London fans (and that's ok), but both of them are delusional if they think they would be anywhere near England call ups, or in the conversation for top FBs in PL if not for Poch & Spurs.

For what its worth, I know a offer was made for Danny the summer before, and he pouted a bit about not being sold, then put his head down and gave us the best 12-16 months of his career.

 

[Grays_1890]

Sure, but it is what it is. You can't legally challenge them in any way on that. Their model is successful on the same metrics we use for our 'model', in an objective sense - success, infrastructure, fiscal health. So there's really no advantage to going our way over theirs in any objective sense - and there never was.

Remove Levy and Lewis and model runs in same way through same revenue channels

Remove Mansoor and the spending power drops significantly unless someone else comes in well healed because their business model does not support the wage structure without personal investment.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

Sure, but it is what it is. You can't legally challenge them in any way on that. Their model is successful on the same metrics we use for our 'model', in an objective sense - success, infrastructure, fiscal health. So there's really no advantage to going our way over theirs in any objective sense - and there never was.

haha leave off ! How do you seriously expect us to compete with that sort of accounting? The only way we can do that is by Joe Lewis putting a billion of his own money in, personally I'd hate that.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Remove Levy and Lewis and model runs in same way through same revenue channels

Remove Mansoor and the spending power drops significantly unless someone else comes in well healed because their business model does not support the wage structure without personal investment.

That's my point - it does, 100%. Mansour's own money really isn't a factor in City's spending anymore - that phase is just about over now. Remove Mansour, and City will run as they are currently run - all the money he put in has been replaced by the dodgy sponsorships and executive box pricing schemes that are still 100% legal and above-board.

haha leave off ! How do you seriously expect us to compete with that sort of accounting? The only way we can do that is by Joe Lewis putting a billion of his own money in, personally I'd hate that.

I'm pointing out that pretending our model is superior to theirs in an objective sense is false - it is not. That's all. We don't pursue this path because it's some revolutionary secret to success that no one has the balls or brains to try - we do it because our owners force us to. They pursued a different path, and in a strictly objective sense, their path is the better one, because they have succeeded a lot more using the same metrics we use to measure ourselves by. Subjectively, different story - objectively, that's just a fact.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

I'm pointing out that pretending our model is superior to theirs in an objective sense is false - it is not. That's all. We don't pursue this path because it's some revolutionary secret to success that no one has the balls or brains to try - we do it because our owners force us to. They pursued a different path, and in a strictly objective sense, their path is the better one, because they have succeeded a lot more using the same metrics we use to measure ourselves by. Subjectively, different story - objectively, that's just a fact.

if I follow you correctly, you're basically saying that as long as you win trophies it doesn't matter how you do it? That is the objective measure you are talking of?

 

[Grays_1890]

That's my point - it does, 100%. Mansour's own money really isn't a factor in City's spending anymore - that phase is just about over now. Remove Mansour, and City will run as they are currently run - all the money he put in has been replaced by the dodgy sponsorships and executive box pricing schemes that are still 100% legal and above-board.

Taking out his 1.2bn investment and the dodgy but above board investments in sponsorship and boxes - hahahaa I am sorry but you are proving that their model is not sustainable to me.