What's new

Player watch: Christian Eriksen

N17paradise

Active Member
Sep 16, 2006
95
142
When does the continental window close? Why would Eriksen sign a new contract with us while there's still an opportunity for a move that he like?

From what I understand it isn't money or trophies that's particularly motivating him, but a change of scene and a genuine step up. And he's said that if that doesn't come to pass, then he'd stay, because "why not?"

Its all fair play imo.
The change of scene ..yes, money.. partly .
 

Ron Burgundy

SC Supporter
Jun 19, 2008
7,705
23,267
A

It's not my money, and he's too important to the team right now and we cannot invest the £40m until the summer

I really don't get that argument. It's the club's money. Your point being - if it was my money and I had to think about incomings and outgoings I could see the logic...but because you consider yourself one step removed, it no longer holds? If we don't get £40m for him, we can't use it for someone else.

I'm guessing you'd be happy if the club spent £40m or there abouts on a good incoming player? Well, assume there'll be one less of them if this didn't happen. Pretty much an AWB, who we could well end up regretting not being more ballsy about.

If the reality of selling him was that we wouldn't get in the CL as a result, then yes - I'd agree with you. But I think we'll probably have enough without him.
 

Spurs 1961

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
6,665
8,739
Sadly £40m buys you little and Eriksen is the difference atm between us being good or able to challenge the best. Lose such an important world class player in his position and we inevitably go backwards for a while. Of course other options are open to us and we have just bought some players who I hope will lift us. They will though take a few months to settle in so a season of Eriksen may well be worth sacrificing the fee. Of course there is no way DL would agree with me
 

Ron Burgundy

SC Supporter
Jun 19, 2008
7,705
23,267
Sadly £40m buys you little

Really - think how many players there will be in Eriksen's situation in a year's time? £40m might well just buy you a seriously good player with a year's contract left.

Or if we're thinking Elite - 2/3 of a De Jong or a De Ligt. AWB went for £45

Or below that, this summer: Tielmans £40m, Rodrygo £40m, Hummel £35m, Pavard £30m, Kean £29m...

Don't get me, it's not necessarily game changing, but it's not to be sniffed at. Some of those might go on to be world stars, and at the very least it's a large portion of some genuinely classy players


and Eriksen is the difference atm between us being good or able to challenge the best. Lose such an important world class player in his position and we inevitably go backwards for a while.

Not sure we'll go backwards. We wouldn't go as far forwards, sure. But backwards? I doubt it
 

Amo

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
15,795
31,480
For those of you say we should turn down 50m and let him go free, I hope you won't be whinging next summer when we're struggling to make signings because we don't have the money.

It's shit that Eriksen wants to leave, but we're just not in the position as a club to not take 50m for a player when the alternative is zero. Next summer we're going to have to buy a RB, CB, and probably an Eriksen replacement at minimum. We absolutely need money. One season of Eriksen isn't worth mortgaging the future for. Plus we already have Lo Celso to step into his role for this season.

I 100% hope he stays and resigns but can't let sentiment overcome good sense, no player is bigger than the club.

If we don't have money to spend next year it won't be because Eriksen left.

I do think we have to sell for anything above £40m but I disagree with the notion that this £40m is all we would hope to have in spending money. We've pissed away more than that on flops many times over across the last decade or so. We've survived and it was never the end of the world.

Below £40m and I think the financial hit is worth it.
 

mattyspurs

It is what it is
Jan 31, 2005
15,280
9,893
I really don't get that argument. It's the club's money. Your point being - if it was my money and I had to think about incomings and outgoings I could see the logic...but because you consider yourself one step removed, it no longer holds? If we don't get £40m for him, we can't use it for someone else.

I'm guessing you'd be happy if the club spent £40m or there abouts on a good incoming player? Well, assume there'll be one less of them if this didn't happen. Pretty much an AWB, who we could well end up regretting not being more ballsy about.

If the reality of selling him was that we wouldn't get in the CL as a result, then yes - I'd agree with you. But I think we'll probably have enough without him.
My logic is that this situation is going to happen more and more these days. Players are going to run their contracts down and there is not much much we can do about it.

Yes £40m is a decent amount of money, still no guarantees we are going to get that.

He could be the difference between winning/top 4 in PL, going through to the KO's of the CL, which is worth more than £40m in the long run.
 

14/04/91

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2006
3,527
5,693
My logic is that this situation is going to happen more and more these days. Players are going to run their contracts down and there is not much much we can do about it.
.

I certainly agree with you that players will run their contracts down.

For us specifically we’ve always been excellent at tying players down to long contracts, especially if they get close to the last 2 years of their current deal.
However that’s been more tricky over the past couple of years resulting in Eriksen and, to a lesser detrimental extent due to his age, Alderweireld running down their deals.

The reason it’s become more tricky is our success; we simply wouldn’t have flogged either of those as soon as they got to t minus 2 years, it would’ve destabilised our top 4/title challenge.

A few years back we had little to lose and lots to gain by selling an ‘uncommitted’ player, that’s just not the case anymore and it’s weakened our bargaining hand.

So do we revert back to the strict ‘sign or sell’ rule or stick with hoping our current approach? Bearing in mind we’re only talking about 2 players (and Alderweireld is a strange case) out of the whole squad in 5 years, we’re not doing it badly.
 

carmeldevil

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2018
7,588
45,111
I certainly agree with you that players will run their contracts down.

For us specifically we’ve always been excellent at tying players down to long contracts, especially if they get close to the last 2 years of their current deal.
However that’s been more tricky over the past couple of years resulting in Eriksen and, to a lesser detrimental extent due to his age, Alderweireld running down their deals.

The reason it’s become more tricky is our success; we simply wouldn’t have flogged either of those as soon as they got to t minus 2 years, it would’ve destabilised our top 4/title challenge.

A few years back we had little to lose and lots to gain by selling an ‘uncommitted’ player, that’s just not the case anymore and it’s weakened our bargaining hand.

So do we revert back to the strict ‘sign or sell’ rule or stick with hoping our current approach? Bearing in mind we’re only talking about 2 players (and Alderweireld is a strange case) out of the whole squad in 5 years, we’re not doing it badly.

I think its ok to do it on case by case basis. The relationship with each player varies. So Maybe Eriksen wanted time and opportunity to see if he could go to a Spanish or Italian big club. If that does not materialize, he might be willing to stay and sign a new contract with release clause etc. Meanwhile Toby may have different goals in mind and will leave next year. Who knows. Everyone is different so I'm sure and hope the brain trust does the same.
 

SpursSince1980

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2011
4,732
14,443
I think the Toby and Christian situations are potentially indicative of a trend that may start to emerge over the next four to five years... I believe that the current state of transfer fees isn't sustainable in the long term. It's getting more-and-more ridiculous some of the prices being paid. Of course, this is aligned with TV and advertising rights increasing exponentially. But, again... not sure how this will sustain itself. We've already seen how it impacts transfers between English clubs. A Maguire to UTD transfer six years ago would've been in the 40M range at best. But $80M? He's good... but not at that price. However, it's the going rate of business these days in the EPL. So, perhaps we'll start to see a very gradual move toward 'free agency'-like markets.... similar to Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NBA and NHL. This also promotes the potential of player trades.

By no means am I suggesting that this would replace what we currently have. But it's not impossible to see something of a hybrid emerging over the next decade. Or, maybe this is the new normal, and we can start to expect in the near future, that the likes of a Lo Celso will be a bargain at 90m!! Who knows.... it's just starting to feel a little bit crazy.
 

Lou3000

£
May 28, 2014
861
2,525
I think the Toby and Christian situations are potentially indicative of a trend that may start to emerge over the next four to five years....

I think smart, well established players can control their fates by signing shorter contracts and running them down, but the prices for younger players are here to stay. A tribunal fetches nearly 10m for top young talent, so that's the floor (estimates put Harvey Elliott's tribunal in excess of 10m). Agents make a lot of money when their clients make lucrative moves. Young players want to get a payday as soon as possible, but also to make as much money as possible in case of an injury. And unless FFP changes, the big clubs will continue to just pay exorbitant fees.
 

JKendall13

Well-Known Member
Jul 2, 2012
1,040
6,953
I think the Toby and Christian situations are potentially indicative of a trend that may start to emerge over the next four to five years... I believe that the current state of transfer fees isn't sustainable in the long term. It's getting more-and-more ridiculous some of the prices being paid. Of course, this is aligned with TV and advertising rights increasing exponentially. But, again... not sure how this will sustain itself. We've already seen how it impacts transfers between English clubs. A Maguire to UTD transfer six years ago would've been in the 40M range at best. But $80M? He's good... but not at that price. However, it's the going rate of business these days in the EPL. So, perhaps we'll start to see a very gradual move toward 'free agency'-like markets.... similar to Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NBA and NHL. This also promotes the potential of player trades.

By no means am I suggesting that this would replace what we currently have. But it's not impossible to see something of a hybrid emerging over the next decade. Or, maybe this is the new normal, and we can start to expect in the near future, that the likes of a Lo Celso will be a bargain at 90m!! Who knows.... it's just starting to feel a little bit crazy.

I don't know if a hybrid system will emerge, but when you look at situations like Zaha and the inverse with Eriksen and Alderweireld, it's becoming clear that clubs are less willing to sell players with years on their contract just because they say they want to leave.

I think it will come down a lot to what the players value. Jack Pitt-Brooke made an interesting point in a recent Athletic article about how often Spurs extend player's contracts and up their salaries:

"Take Harry Kane. He signed a five-year contract in August 2014, when he broke into the first team. He signed another five-year one in February 2015, a five-and-a-half year deal in December 2016 and then a six-year contract in June 2018. He has never been anything other than securely locked down as a Tottenham player.

Harry Winks, who broke into the team two years after Kane, has signed four separate five-year deals in the last three years. Dele Alli signed three long-term contracts in his first 18 months as a Tottenham player. Then, after considering the prospect of a move, he signed another in October 2018. That one still has another five years to run."

Alli's original Spurs contract was 25k/week now he's at 100k, Kane is now up to 200k up from academy wages, Winks to 60k from academy wages, Son went from originally being at 85k to now at 140k after resigning last summer. Levy has done an excellent job rewarding players who perform.

Eriksen resigned in 2016 for 75k/week which is now less than Lamela, Moura, Sissoko, among others and equal to Serge Aurier. At the time he was one of the highest earners at the club. Toby is only on 80k. We know for a fact that the club has offered them new contracts and tried to give them both substantial raises. Eriksen was supposedly offered 200k/week this summer which is almost triple his current wages and I feel relatively certain he's been offered less significant raises to resign and add more years to his deal since 2016.

It's both Eriksen and Alderweireld's prerogative to sign or not sign a contract, but let's make no mistake about it, both of them have left significant amounts of money on the table over the last 4 years by not resigning new deals with Tottenham. Maybe it will work out for them and their plan was always to run down their deal to make it easier, but it's a big risk monetarily.

As we've seen the past two summers, they haven't garnered as much interest as I'm guessing they would have thought. Nowadays, there's only a handful of clubs that can offer bigger wages than Spurs. We'll see if they are able to recoup the probably 10-15m combined over the last few years they left on the table by not accepting raises and resigning with Spurs.
 
Last edited:

smallsnc

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2017
699
1,237
the issue is he doesnt have to accept any move so we may not have a decision to make, if it gets us CL football then is it worth 50m?

And who exactly is offering 50 million anything when he can go on a free next summer. Eriksen is good, transfer fees are crazy but other clubs are also managing budgets even if they are big budgets.
 

alexis

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2012
1,820
3,374
Be interesting to see how it effects player prices if it becomes a trend. Maybe guaranteed fees agreed for last 24 and 12 months of contracts so clubs can recoup.
 

guiltyparty

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2005
9,023
13,524
I don't know if a hybrid system will emerge, but when you look at situations like Zaha and the inverse with Eriksen and Alderweireld, it's becoming clear that clubs are less willing to sell players with years on their contract just because they say they want to leave.

I think it will come down a lot to what the players value. Jack Pitt-Brooke made an interesting point in a recent Athletic article about how often Spurs extend player's contracts and up their salaries:

"Take Harry Kane. He signed a five-year contract in August 2014, when he broke into the first team. He signed another five-year one in February 2015, a five-and-a-half year deal in December 2016 and then a six-year contract in June 2018. He has never been anything other than securely locked down as a Tottenham player.

Harry Winks, who broke into the team two years after Kane, has signed four separate five-year deals in the last three years. Dele Alli signed three long-term contracts in his first 18 months as a Tottenham player. Then, after considering the prospect of a move, he signed another in October 2018. That one still has another five years to run."

Alli's original Spurs contract was 25k/week now he's at 100k, Kane is now up to 200k up from academy wages, Winks to 60k from academy wages, Son went from originally being at 85k to now at 140k after resigning last summer. Levy has done an excellent job rewarding players who perform.

Eriksen resigned in 2016 for 75k/week which is now less than Lamela, Moura, Sissoko, among others and equal to Serge Aurier. At the time he was one of the highest earners at the club. Toby is only on 80k. We know for a fact that the club has offered them new contracts and tried to give them both substantial raises. Eriksen was supposedly offered 200k/week this summer which is almost triple his current wages and I feel relatively certain he's been offered less significant raises to resign and add more years to his deal since 2016.

It's both Eriksen and Alderweireld's prerogative to sign or not sign a contract, but let's make no mistake about it, both of them have left significant amounts of money on the table over the last 4 years by not resigning new deals with Tottenham. Maybe it will work out for them and their plan was always to run down their deal to make it easier, but it's a big risk monetarily.

As we've seen the past two summers, they haven't garnered as much interest as I'm guessing they would have thought. Nowadays, there's only a handful of clubs that can offer bigger wages than Spurs. We'll see if they are able to recoup the probably 10-15m combined over the last few years they left on the table by not accepting raises and resigning with Spurs.

Been enjoying Pitt-Brooke in The Athletic

However for me this just highlights that there’s no way either is re-signing. As you say, they’ve left an enormous amount of money on the table - even at 300k a week, someone of Toby’s age would need a big signing on fee to make up the shortfall with the time he has left. That will only happen by leaving.

Irritating how Juve do this time and again
 

14/04/91

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2006
3,527
5,693
And who exactly is offering 50 million anything when he can go on a free next summer. Eriksen is good, transfer fees are crazy but other clubs are also managing budgets even if they are big budgets.

And he’s currently a ‘nice to have’ rather than ‘must have’ option (at best) for any big Euro club
 
Top