Brendan Rodgers

[Chazza]

Brendan Rodgers

That's just over £17m spent per window, it used to be considered a fair whack but when you consider Norwich have already spent £10m more than that in this window and we've moved on the likes of Carroll for £15m its not great amount.

Or you could see it as we spent a **** load last season and didn't get much back in.

Everyone is looking at this window but not considering what they have given Rodgers since he has been here.

On top of that they are looking at a new stadium and how to fund and develop that which must be considered in a long term strategy.

[little dave hedgehog]

is that figure net?

because you also have to consider that there has been a mass exodus during the last 3 windows.

[Chazza]

is that figure net?

because you also have to consider that there has been a mass exodus during the last 3 windows.

Not sure but not a massive amount has come back in through sales bar Carroll.

[little dave hedgehog]

they all add up pretty quickly when you're talking about that many players.

[Chazza]

they all add up pretty quickly when you're talking about that many players.

A load on free's though. Think his first full season was only about £5m back?

[little dave hedgehog]

there's also wages to be considered. i don't think it's cut and dry as all that. we've clearly spent a bit of money on players since fsg took over. if you don't think they've done enough that's your lookout, but i for one am happy that they draw a line in the sand and don't cross it. going to be good for our health in the long term. will help us in future negotiations as well.

[Chazza]

there's also wages to be considered. i don't think it's cut and dry as all that. we've clearly spent a bit of money on players since fsg took over. if you don't think they've done enough that's your lookout, but i for one am happy that they draw a line in the sand and don't cross it. going to be good for our health in the long term. will help us in future negotiations as well.

I have no issue with them.

[Hemingway]

By my count, the net spends since FSG came in were £1.9m in their first winter window, £34.5m two years ago (the Kenny summer), and £33.5m in BR's first year. There's a negative net spend presently, but with over a week to go I imagine that won't be the case when the window closes and January could see new investment as well. Obviously wages are a factor there, but to what degree it's difficult to say. Regardless, the last two full years Spurs have had negative net spends - a fact which everyone seems to forget when lauding their newfound ambition is that discipline up to this point has actually put them in the position to be that ambitious - and managed to finish ahead of us. Investment has not been the issue, we've just spent it poorly.

[Fredo]

By my count, the net spends since FSG came in were £1.9m in their first winter window, £34.5m two years ago (the Kenny summer), and £33.5m in BR's first year. There's a negative net spend presently, but with over a week to go I imagine that won't be the case when the window closes and January could see new investment as well. Obviously wages are a factor there, but to what degree it's difficult to say. Regardless, the last two full years Spurs have had negative net spends - a fact which everyone seems to forget when lauding their newfound ambition is that discipline up to this point has actually put them in the position to be that ambitious - and managed to finish ahead of us. Investment has not been the issue, we've just spent it poorly.

Negative net spend

[MrMichael]

By my count, the net spends since FSG came in were £1.9m in their first winter window, £34.5m two years ago (the Kenny summer), and £33.5m in BR's first year. There's a negative net spend presently, but with over a week to go I imagine that won't be the case when the window closes and January could see new investment as well. Obviously wages are a factor there, but to what degree it's difficult to say. Regardless, the last two full years Spurs have had negative net spends - a fact which everyone seems to forget when lauding their newfound ambition is that discipline up to this point has actually put them in the position to be that ambitious - and managed to finish ahead of us. Investment has not been the issue, we've just spent it poorly.

Absolutely

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

Under Rodgers I don't think we've spent it poorly at all.

Allen and Borini were comfort zone signing which I think if he had his time again he would think twice about but other than that I think we'd all have to be pretty pleased given the amounts he's had.

[dom9]

Got back in about 30 mins ago. Loved it. The Vampire ride and Dragons Fury... Enjoyed today, really so much better than Legoland.

What date do I go back to school...cheeky bugger.



Hannah is 4....the others I will keep on the shhhhhhh.




Just because you have been neutered.




No Nige. Stop that please! I was a kid in the 80s...you do the maths...not even a fraction of Neil's age!

Crikey. I remember the vampire ride when I was about 17. And it was tame then.

[Hemingway]

Under Rodgers I don't think we've spent it poorly at all.

Allen and Borini were comfort zone signing which I think if he had his time again he would think twice about but other than that I think we'd all have to be pretty pleased given the amounts he's had.

No, I'd agree with that, the issue was pre-BR, in the Comolli era. Spending £60m or so on Carroll/Adam/Downing, which we promptly turned into £25m and zero first team players two years later, really did a number on us, but then we all already know that story.

[EwarWoo]

That's just over £17m spent per window, it used to be considered a fair whack but when you consider Norwich have already spent £10m more than that in this window and we've moved on the likes of Carroll for £15m its not great amount.

26.5m per year, with this window yet to close and a second window to come in this seasons budget.

I think that's pretty good myself. Especially considering how cautious they should have been after Commolli and Kenny basically threw their cash in the gutter.

[Muddled]

is that figure net?

because you also have to consider that there has been a mass exodus during the last 3 windows.

Yeah, I should have been clearer in my original post.

In 2012/13, FSG gave Rodgers £59,488,000 of which he recouped £9,196,000, therefore a net spend of £50,292,000.

In 2013/14 (so far), FSG has given Rodgers £24,464,000 to spend, recouping £27,104,000, generating a profit of £2,640,000.

And as I've typed that, I've realised I've muddled (whaay!) my original figure up. Under Rodgers' tenure they have spent £47,652,000 (net). Other headline figures would be that FSG have provided £84,134,000 in transfer funds. Or £42,067,000 a season. Or £28,044,666 a transfer window.

If you consider their interest in Mkhitaryan, Costa and Willian along with - like you say LDH - the reduced wage bill, I think it's fair to say that FSG have been more than generous and have certainly stumped up the cash to back Rodgers.

I believe the recent comments from Brendan are borne out of frustration at not being able to add to the group (© Brendan Rodgers); we have the smallest first team squad in the Premiership (23) and I'm sure Brendan will feel that he needs to add to that. When you consider the average age of our squad is 25.5 (the second youngest in the Premiership), you can start to see how we are building firm foundations.

This was not something that could be turned around in one season; this is a long-term vision that started with culling the dregs of the first team, reducing the wage bill to assist with Financial Fair Play rules and building a young squad to allow for a sustained challenge at the top. I still believe this year will be one of transition and it's from 2014/15 onwards, that we will start to see the project (© Brendan Rodgers) bearing fruit.