As as an Arsenal fan this may sound a little biased. However, I do have some close friends who are Spurs fans, hence a degree of perspective has been put on the following debate, which I have been having with Spurs mates. For although Spurs have sold Michael Carrick in the summer for 13 million rising to 18 million over the next few years, it is also quite clear that you have spent money the other way too: Berbatov- 10.9 million Rocha- 3 million Assou-Ekoto- 3 million Zokora- 8 million Malbranque- 2 million Chimbonda- 5 million and others I may not remember... I'm not knocking the transfer policy (a lot of the transfers have worked out, especially Berbatov), but it seems to me that if this much money is spent on players in comparison to last season's spending, surely you should be doing better in the league? A common excuse used by mates to counter this argument is that their team now have other commitments e.g European football, Cup competitions etc. But when I used this argument myself last season to perhaps explain why Arsenal were doing quite poorly in the league (our champion's league run), they only came back with the remark "well thats what a squad is for". Surely it works both ways, I ask myself? Anyway, please post your views on the debate, so I can end this debate with mates once and for all!
I am wondering long time why Spurs had so bad pricing policy. All player which came to WHL were very expensive. They had never been in Champions league. i can't remember for some cup. Sorry for my english.
