Not selling big name players is one thing, but passing over quality players with no sell on value is quite another, and much more foolhardy. Redknapp himself admitted that the Parker move very nearly did not come to pass due to the age of the player and the fact Spurs could not financially profit from the midfielder – yet how many points will Parker gain them over the course of a season? They may well profit far more than they initially realised – just because a player may not have a re-sale value does not mean they should be discarded as a potential signing.
Redknapp calls Parker the ‘hardest signing of the summer’ due to the decision to break from usual transfer policy, one suspects that other Premier League managers will have been wishing their signings were just as torturous given the dividends from the capture of Parker.
If Spurs had deviated from their clearly flawed policy of refusing to buy players with no sell on value before the capture of Parker, the amount of quality players they could have signed even for a couple of years may have brought more to the club than they could have realised. Even this summer, Drogba could have been tempted away from Chelsea, and especially with Redknapp’s way with players, the prolific Ivorian could well have ended up at the Lane. However, Spurs refused to go there as the player would offer no re-sale value – the value offered in terms of performance and goals however may well have negated this.
This situation has repeated itself multiple times in the past for Spurs, and when you look at the value Harry places on signing experienced players who can help guide young players the transfer policy seems somewhat juxtaposed with Levy’s ‘buy young, develop, sell for more’ ideology. One thing is for certain, Spurs fans will be glad Harry won out on this one with the performances Parker has produced so far – who knows if he keeps going in this form, he may have a sell on value after all! On a final serious note, the capture of Parker should have really highlighted for the north Londoners that when it comes to buying players, many more factors than purely a re-sale value must be considered –what they can offer the club in the here and now is a pretty crucial one, and Parker is showing just how flawed their previous transfer policy really was.
Written by Rebecca Knight for FootballFancast.com
Introducing the neat little app that’ll pay you to view content tailored to your interests:
ThisisFutbol.com are seeking new writers to join the team! If you’re passionate about football, drop us a line at “thisisfutbol.com@snack-media.com” to learn more.
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
No
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.
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.