Blogs

Does this evidence suggest Tottenham’s transfer approach has been deeply flawed?

|
Image for Does this evidence suggest Tottenham’s transfer approach has been deeply flawed?

Anyone who has caught even a small amount ofTottenham‘s games so far this season would have to agree on one thing; summer midfield signing Scott Parker has been one of the buys of the season and, in short, a revelation. Of course this should not be a huge surprise to fans of Parker, who saw him feature as the shining light in West Ham’s doomed season – much like Joe Cole did the previous time they succumbed to relegation – Parker played with heart, passion and immense quality.

It was not a shock when the player left the Hammers to stay in the Premier League – the level he is certainly in the upper echelons of. Nor, on the surface was it a surprise to see Harry ‘I’m not a wheeler dealer’ Redknapp swoop in and snap him up. Parker seems like exactly the type of player Harry would go for, and was a perfect fit for Spurs in the summer, filling a gap in the centre of the park which is no longer there.

However, if you take a closer look, the purchase of Parker represents a switch from Spurs’ usual transferpolicy – in Parker, a player the wrong side of 30, there is little, if any sell on value. Previously, Spurs have been reluctant to buy players of such nature. On some level this is understandable, with the club realistic about its financial situation in comparison to money boys like Chelsea and Manchester City, realising that if an offer they could not afford to turn down for a player came in, they would have to take it – Berba springs to mind here.

Yet Spurs want to join the big boys and really become a top four team – not one that just drops in and out of the Champions League places. To do this they have to start thinking beyond selling players should the opportunity arise, or even when they feel the player no longer fits and start living in the here and now.  Rightly or wrongly, Spurs and Daniel Levy sent out a message when they refused to sell Modric, and are trying to send the message that they are not just a feeder team for the big boys. Many may feel the Modric saga has the potential to turn into a Fabregas-esque situation, but for now the player remains at Spurs – playing well and looking like his mind is returning to the right place.

Click HERE to head to PAGE TWO

Share this article

FFC

0 comments

  • LexSpurs says:

    No, it hasn’t been flawed. I have seen this issue come up several times recently, presumably based on the “evidence” of Parker (maybe it was this same article in a different wrapping? Really, the wording seems very familiar…).

    This is not about what the club wants or does not want to do. It is about what it’s able to do given the circumstances. The circumstances are, among other things, that we do not have an unlimited pool of funds, we have a stadium with capacity of 36,000 and we are not an international brand in the same way as Man Utd, Liverpool, etc. Adding that we actually have a chairman and an administration that seems to take seriously their fiduciary duties, Spurs are doing quite well both short and long term IMO. We have young players with great ability and even better potential, many of whom could have been sold (if we were willing) during the last 3-4 years.

    If anything, Parker is evidence of a good signing and a welcomed addition to a good group of players with great potential, many of whom would have been sold during the last 3-4 years if the assumption on which this article is based, was true. Not much wrong with that I think.

    LexS

  • nonfickle says:

    Err Fabregas was brought up and was a Barcelona youth player.Fabregas had always stated that at some time in the future his ambition was to RETURN to play for them, Modric was brought up in Croatia,played for Dinamo Zagreb beofre coming to the UK for Tottenham. So “the Modric saga has the potential to turn into a Fabregas-esque situation”
    ERRR. Spot the difference!!! DOH. This item was dire on another website . FFC?? FFS please don’t continue to recycle rubbish.

  • Dad says:

    NO, Diarra was first choice, a younger player with sell on value. Policy remains. Parker was the short term back up plan to add what was needed when Diarra decided at the last minute he wanted more money.

Comments are closed.