It was always part of the discussion which club had the best transfers in the transfer window. But we never had a conversation about any bad business. Many clubs got their desired transfers done, but a few just got linked. This transfer window, English clubs spent over £3.53 billion. Many big names transferred to the Premier League. A few notable transfers are Enzo Fernandez to Manchester City for £125 million, Bradley Barcola to Liverpool for £107 to £123 million, Morgan Rogers to Chelsea for £120 million, Elliot Anderson to Manchester City for £116 million, and Sandro Tonali to Spurs for £108 million.
The Premier League spent a huge chunk of money, but if we have to pick a club that made the most stupid signings, it is Tottenham Hotspur. They barely survived relegation last year, so it was expected to spend a big chunk. They spent up to £394 million, including potential add-ons/obligations. But they barely got a player we can say will be the face of the club for the next few years. This transfer spending raised a few questions:
What was the plan for spending?
Is there any roadmap for signings, or just random buying?
Does leaving their own stars and bringing in new ones make sense or not?
What was the plan for spending?
The first thought after seeing this transfer window spending was: is there any plan? If yes, what was it? Spurs bought Sandro Tonali for a club-record £108 million. £108 million for a defensive midfielder with 10 goals overall in 110 appearances does not make sense. Especially when you left your captain, Cristian Romero, for just £40 million. That raised concerns over Spurs’ transfer window plans.
Secondly, the biggest signing is Mateus Fernandes for £99 million. A player whose club was relegated last season, and you brought him for such a big fee, raised eyebrows among football pundits. Mateus was not extraordinary for West Ham last season, with just four goals in 38 appearances in all competitions for the Hammers. Even this signing seems more useless, as Spurs already have midfielders like Marcos Senesi, Conor Gallagher, James Maddison, Mohammed Kudus, Dejan Kulusevski, and Rodrigo Bentancur, who are a few notable names.
The third biggest waste seems to be Savio for £87.70 million. A player who can play at left wing and also as an attacking midfielder, but still, he has only scored seven times for Manchester City in 84 chances he got. This is a historic departure for Man City. Spurs were continuously eager for the Brazilian star, as they targeted him last season as well. But this time, they got him.
Is there any roadmap for signings or just random buying?
This window, Spurs spent a huge amount of money. But still, they failed to fill the biggest gap in their squad. It was the striker or centre-forward position. They went for a loan deal for Omar Marmoush, but the major concern is that he was used as a backup striker at Man City. Omar was still short of consistent scoring and high-level No. 9 output.
The concern proved vital as Spurs went goalless in both opening games. De Zerbi’s Spurs have one question to answer: what was the roadmap for all these signings? Spurs fixed defensive problems and added valuable strength in midfield. But still, the missing piece for Spurs is a No. 9. On an open note, they failed to fix the gaps after the transfer of Harry Kane and Son. They got Richarlison and Dominic Solanke, while their injury crisis and inconsistency haunted the Brazilian and Englishman.
Leaving their own stars and bringing in new ones: Does it make sense or not?
The change at the managerial level showcased a shift in the squad, where many regular starters and high-profile faces left Spurs. Djed Spence, Guglielmo Vicario, and Cristian Romero left the club on loan and through sales. This raised concerns, but it brought in a lot of money that was used to reshape the squad. Sales of £150–£250 million were made in potential income.
The removal of Cuti in a beneficial deal helped De Zerbi to keep the players under control. A list of names included in this transfer window’s sales were facing attitude problems at Spurs. So, this move worked for them as a soft-shifted strategy. But this is a double-edged sword that can haunt Spurs as well.