The Deadline Day ITK Discussion Thread - 1st September

[vegassd]

We keep arguing because people think that things have to be ordered in a certain way, they don't. We could have risked signing a centre back, it would have furthered increased the tension on the deadwood to realise their chances were limited. We weren't willing to take the risk. Stop trying to argue it was out of their hands, it wasn't, the only thing out of their hands was control over the situation in it's entirety, it was their choice.

That's the really disappointing part for me - the lack of risk taking in this particular window. I'm not normally one for saying do all the incomings first and worry about the outgoings later, but in relation to Dier and Sanchez, they both only have a year left (I believe) so any bloat on the wage bill is only going to exist for one year. And since our wage bill is so low (in relative terms) it's bonkers to me that the club haven't reinforced.

Ndombele and Hojberg are probably a bit more complicated, so whilst I would have loved to see us sign Gallagher I don't think it's the end of the world. But the CB situation is just non-sensical and a real let down in my opinion.

 

[Nerine]

When the usual suspects are off the wage bill because they aren’t suited to the system, too old, lazy, crap, contract finally expired, etc, who are gonna be the next crop of players we need off the wage bill?

Fair to say

Sanchez
Dier
Ndombele
Lloris
Davies
Hojbjerg
Reguillon

Are the main ones.

Who are we going to want shifted after that?? Interested.

 

[FibreOpticJesus]

Anybody know when all clubs register their 25 man squads?

 

[kremlyn]

As long as you don’t mind afternoon tea.

He brings his own tea cozy

 

[nicdic]

I’m not hung up on anything mate.

We have had this ‘unable to shift bodies’ line trotted out for 3 or 4 seasons at this stage it seems, do you not think it’s bullshit by now? I’m not tuned into other clubs dealings, but I can’t imagine many have it as bad.

Agree with you on defence being better due to the midfield and style of play, but if you think Sanchez & Davies can fill in at CB or LB for any length of time in excess of a game or two, I sadly fear you are mistaken. We’ve seen these guys get cleaned too often.

I simply don’t buy this line that very very few clubs can buy without selling when it’s in reference to me talking about us bringing in a CB on loan or on the cheap, the Southampton lad would have been ideal as a third choice, he went on loan to PSV. You buying that we couldn’t have got in on that?

Why does it being an ongoing problem mean that it's bs? That doesn't make any sense. Even if other clubs don't have the same problem, it doesn't mean it's not a problem for us. The same players have gone out on loan and not been able to secure permanent deals for multiple seasons in a row. That isn't bs, it's clearly happening. There are a multitude of reasons that factor into that, maybe the players aren't that good, attitude isn't good enough, wages are too much for lesser clubs, they don't want to go to the options permanently that are on offer, we are asking too much. It could be a mix of all those things, but so many just assume it's all about us asking too much. Which sometimes I'm sure is true, but we also know that we've accepted deals for a number of these players to then reject the moves.

Part of the reason we have it so bad, is that we had a period of time where the club had no direction and we were just picking up players for the sake of it. We are now paying the price for it. The thing that astounds me is that people can see that, but then want us to just get ANYONE in on the final day, even though that's just going to cause the same problems to repeat. I don't believe the needing to sell before we buy is about the finances, it's about squad management and trying to not get into this position again in the future.

I have full faith in Davies or Sanchez doing a job for an extended amount of time, if it's just one of them, in an otherwise well oiled machine. Davies has been nothing but a solid and dependable player for us, can cover LCB and LB, and Sanchez was destroyed by Jose and Conte. Sanchez is a good defender, but if you make him sit on the edge of the penalty box and give him the ball with no options he, like many other players, will look BAD.

I don't know that there were any clear reports that we were interested in Bella-Kotchap, I assume he was being offered first team football with PSV? And I get the sense that all of our attempts at bringing a CB in yesterday, were, like Gallagher, dependent on a player going out to free up the space.

 

[coy-spurs1882]

When the usual suspects are off the wage bill because they aren’t suited to the system, too old, lazy, crap, contract finally expired, etc, who are gonna be the next crop of players we need off the wage bill?

Fair to say

Sanchez
Dier
Ndombele
Lloris
Davies
Hojbjerg
Reguillon

Are the main ones.

Who are we going to want shifted after that?? Interested.

add Sessegnon and Gil to the list

 

[alpha]

For some reason, I want to attempt to try and explain thing's in a way that hopefully makes clearer the problems and I think the problems we continually run into can be encapsulated within the Centre back problem.

I'll be clear on my premise, I think the club this summer revealed the truth of the situation fairly clearly that it prioritises the financial aspects of situations over the football aspects. I want to be clear that I believe that owners of football clubs can do that and still be successful, if they do approach it correctly, so my problem isn't the prioritisation, it's how poorly our approach seems to interpret risk/reward within the model.

So the situation is; We wanted another CB who could play in the manner that Ange requires them to, that is from the manager. My personal opinion was that I'd rather sign nobody than a stop gap, I'm explaining this to remove possibility of bias. Ange wanted different but there was also another option which was, sign 2 quality CB's. That choice was available to the club, you can argue the viability but you can't argue that it wasn't a choice.

However I think most of us can agree that it seemed that the approach was to sign VDV and then a player of back up quality. Now the justification for why this hasn't happened is the premise that we couldn't shift deadwood but I want to try and show that it isn't that we couldn't shift deadwood, it was that we was unwilling to buy the back up before we shift the deadwood, even more unwilling to do so early. If you look at what transpired, I think the evidence is on my side. This is a choice by the club that reveals, in my opinion, that they are unwilling to risk financials.

Look at it this way, Lloyd Kelly had 12 months left on his deal, he was homegrown, he was with a favourable agency, supposedly he fit the data model.

Now we didn't attempt to go for this deal until the last 48 hours, the reason this deal was not possible was because, Bournemouth did not have enough time to get a replacement. It was not because we couldn't shift deadwood, because as has been revealed, there were offers on deadline day for Sanchez. This has been reported by multiple different media, ITK. It is pretty nailed on that there were indeed offers for Sanchez on deadline day.

Sanchez didn't move because we were not going to be able to secure a replacement.

Now ask yourselves, what rule states, that we can't first sign for example Lloyd Kelly, even a week before and then try and find a way to shift Sanchez? Because we are unwilling to risk the certainty that we can. The other reason is because it lowers our negotiating position in regards to outgoings because clubs know we have too many players, thus lowering the ability to extract financial value.

This idea that this is a reasonable argument as to why we didn't get Ange what he wanted, I feel I've proven is false, it's a choice by the club. Other clubs would take the risk, it is within the club's choice to take the risk, they choose not to, they did not prioritise the footballing needs of Ange due to the financial risk implications. It is clear in the evidence of what happened.

However now, we have kept Sanchez, any possible value we could have extracted this summer by forcing ourselves into a position of having to sell by signing Kelly, is now gone because by Jan it will be 6 months left on his contract, he sign a pre-agreement with any club outside the country, the club has lost it's control of that situation.

You can argue that some players are immoveable no matter what tactics of coercion you try to convince them that they have to do something they don't have to. As we have seen with Dier, we're going to lose out financially on those players also. There was nothing that could be done about that, our inability to accept that and take risk anyway, may cost us more.

There's now an argument to say that because of the need to needle the small assets to this degree, the big picture has been lost and the big picture is the result implications that this may have on the team. An extraordinary amount of luck is going to be needed to avoid injuries and suspensions to VDV and Romero. What will be the financial implications of the points lost? What have been the financial implications of this approach of the last 4 seasons? The breakdown of relationship with 3 managers, two of which were on 15 million a year and cost the amount they did to hire and remove, the cost of the depreciating assets as the club has regressed and with it, the opinions on the values of our players? The loss of Europe, particularly the Champions League. The impact that that has had on the appeal of being a sponsor to the club, in particular the name on the stadium and the prestige of being the name on the stadium.

We keep arguing because people think that things have to be ordered in a certain way, they don't. We could have risked signing a centre back, it would have furthered increased the tension on the deadwood to realise their chances were limited. We weren't willing to take the risk. Stop trying to argue it was out of their hands, it wasn't, the only thing out of their hands was control over the situation in it's entirety, it was their choice.

Seems a well balanced argument and thought this post could go in the main forum.

The bolded is a strong counter -argument to Spurs’ safe approach and wonder if Levy will ever see that side of it.

 

[FibreOpticJesus]

add Sessegnon and Gil to the list

Sess yes but Gil needs time with Ange and then see after that.

 

[Rob]

It could be a mix of all those things, but so many just assume it's all about us asking too much. Which sometimes I'm sure is true, but we also know that we've accepted deals for a number of these players to then reject the moves.

We don't compromie on the amount we want for them but we expect the player to compromise on where they want to go, e.g. PEH to Fulham. If we'd lowered our asking price, other clubs would come in, higher wages would be offered, etc.

All the reasons you say are resolved if we're flexible with their valuation but we never are.

 

[nicdic]

I don’t have a toxic attitude towards players. I have defended Eric Dier (for example) many times on this forum. But your post is just apologist nonsense. We wanted to shift at least 8 unwanted players and we sold one. We have failed to sell many of them for several seasons now. Find me another club, big or small, with the same problem. You can make excuses why some are difficult to shift, but it’s all of them, every time. The second half of our window was a comprehensive failure. The season might go well regardless and I’m excited for it, but yet again we’ve failed to maximise our chances and it’s for the same old predictable reasons.

I don't think I directed that comment at you, I was replying to a specific poster claiming certain players weren't fit for purpose, which is nonsense.

My post isn't apologist nonsense, I'm trying to bring a bit of a balance to a far more complex situation than many want to believe. It's far too simplistic to just get all angry at Levy, again, to be clear, not levelling that at you, just the general feeling on the forum.

I don't know well enough the troubles other clubs do or don't have in getting rid of players that they don't want, so I can't speak to that, but it doesn't negate the fact, we clearly have issues moving these players on. As @Tucker's post below well explains, it clearly wasn't for a lack of trying. We did accept multiple bids for players. And seemingly were willing to do deals for pretty low fees. Yes there are arguments that can be made about releasing players, or buying first and forcing players hands a bit more. Personally, I'd have loved us to buy first and then deal with the outs, but for whatever reason that hasn't happened in these last two positions (CB, CM).

As for releasing players, it's far more complicated then many want to believe. There's a lot to be negotiated, and then there's going to be a whole legal process, plus obviously a significant cost to the club. It's completely understandable that when all of the players we wanted out were receiving bids, that we decided not to pursue releasing them from their contracts. Why would anyone do that, pay to release them, when clubs are offering decent enough money for them?!

The club did accept numerous bids for Dier (Fulham, Bournemouth,) Ndombele (Fenerbache, Galatasarray, Genoa) Sanchez (Cska Moscow) Lloris (Lazio) and Højbjerg (Fulham.)

So it’s not like they weren’t willing to shift these players on at prices other clubs were clearly willing to pay.

Rodon, Tanganga, and Reguilon all went on loan and seemingly had no permanent suitors. Both Rodon and Tanganga have options if they do well enough to warrant it.

It’s clear the club were intent on moving lots of these players on if at all possible. Some may still yet go to Turkey, Saudi, or simply be released.

There’s an argument to be had over whether the club should have bitten the bullet and released some of these players earlier. But given the club did receive cash offers for these players I can understand why they didn’t release them early. We are never going to sell Ndombele, no one he’s willing to go to will bid for him, he’s a millstone hung around our neck now. Time to bite the bullet on that one for sure. Dier, and Lloris aren’t going to be in the team we should release them too.

I want to see the decks cleared now, get the squad ready for investment in the coming transfer windows.

 

[nicdic]

For some reason, I want to attempt to try and explain thing's in a way that hopefully makes clearer the problems and I think the problems we continually run into can be encapsulated within the Centre back problem.

I'll be clear on my premise, I think the club this summer revealed the truth of the situation fairly clearly that it prioritises the financial aspects of situations over the football aspects. I want to be clear that I believe that owners of football clubs can do that and still be successful, if they do approach it correctly, so my problem isn't the prioritisation, it's how poorly our approach seems to interpret risk/reward within the model.

So the situation is; We wanted another CB who could play in the manner that Ange requires them to, that is from the manager. My personal opinion was that I'd rather sign nobody than a stop gap, I'm explaining this to remove possibility of bias. Ange wanted different but there was also another option which was, sign 2 quality CB's. That choice was available to the club, you can argue the viability but you can't argue that it wasn't a choice.

However I think most of us can agree that it seemed that the approach was to sign VDV and then a player of back up quality. Now the justification for why this hasn't happened is the premise that we couldn't shift deadwood but I want to try and show that it isn't that we couldn't shift deadwood, it was that we was unwilling to buy the back up before we shift the deadwood, even more unwilling to do so early. If you look at what transpired, I think the evidence is on my side. This is a choice by the club that reveals, in my opinion, that they are unwilling to risk financials.

Look at it this way, Lloyd Kelly had 12 months left on his deal, he was homegrown, he was with a favourable agency, supposedly he fit the data model.

Now we didn't attempt to go for this deal until the last 48 hours, the reason this deal was not possible was because, Bournemouth did not have enough time to get a replacement. It was not because we couldn't shift deadwood, because as has been revealed, there were offers on deadline day for Sanchez. This has been reported by multiple different media, ITK. It is pretty nailed on that there were indeed offers for Sanchez on deadline day.

Sanchez didn't move because we were not going to be able to secure a replacement.

Now ask yourselves, what rule states, that we can't first sign for example Lloyd Kelly, even a week before and then try and find a way to shift Sanchez? Because we are unwilling to risk the certainty that we can. The other reason is because it lowers our negotiating position in regards to outgoings because clubs know we have too many players, thus lowering the ability to extract financial value.

This idea that this is a reasonable argument as to why we didn't get Ange what he wanted, I feel I've proven is false, it's a choice by the club. Other clubs would take the risk, it is within the club's choice to take the risk, they choose not to, they did not prioritise the footballing needs of Ange due to the financial risk implications. It is clear in the evidence of what happened.

However now, we have kept Sanchez, any possible value we could have extracted this summer by forcing ourselves into a position of having to sell by signing Kelly, is now gone because by Jan it will be 6 months left on his contract, he sign a pre-agreement with any club outside the country, the club has lost it's control of that situation.

You can argue that some players are immoveable no matter what tactics of coercion you try to convince them that they have to do something they don't have to. As we have seen with Dier, we're going to lose out financially on those players also. There was nothing that could be done about that, our inability to accept that and take risk anyway, may cost us more.

There's now an argument to say that because of the need to needle the small assets to this degree, the big picture has been lost and the big picture is the result implications that this may have on the team. An extraordinary amount of luck is going to be needed to avoid injuries and suspensions to VDV and Romero. What will be the financial implications of the points lost? What have been the financial implications of this approach of the last 4 seasons? The breakdown of relationship with 3 managers, two of which were on 15 million a year and cost the amount they did to hire and remove, the cost of the depreciating assets as the club has regressed and with it, the opinions on the values of our players? The loss of Europe, particularly the Champions League. The impact that that has had on the appeal of being a sponsor to the club, in particular the name on the stadium and the prestige of being the name on the stadium.

We keep arguing because people think that things have to be ordered in a certain way, they don't. We could have risked signing a centre back, it would have furthered increased the tension on the deadwood to realise their chances were limited. We weren't willing to take the risk. Stop trying to argue it was out of their hands, it wasn't, the only thing out of their hands was control over the situation in it's entirety, it was their choice.

This is a good post.

People think I'm just defending Levy or whatever, but I do completely agree with you here that we could and should have gone for our business first and forced the hands of players.

 

[Albertbarich]

I don't understand the thinking yesterday.

By refusing even low ball bids for Sanchez, by not letting Dier go on loan without an extension all we have done is make sure we pay them for another year to then lose them for free.

So in trying to save money surely he has just cost us money. The Holjberg one I get and well I think Lloris should have been released at the start of the summer to find himself a club but I think the longer we left it, Hugo probably realised that the offers he had were probably for less money and still as a number 2. I suspect Saudi will be in his future now.

 

[nicdic]

We don't compromie on the amount we want for them but we expect the player to compromise on where they want to go, e.g. PEH to Fulham. If we'd lowered our asking price, other clubs would come in, higher wages would be offered, etc.

All the reasons you say are resolved if we're flexible with their valuation but we never are.

I mean I don't think that's true at all. £30m from Fulham for Højbjerg is a huge compromise. Just because people don't like him, doesn't mean that isn't true.

 

[tottenhamlad]

It’s why we need a football man in charge of the football side of this company. Levy has done well creating the training complex and stadium (that’s sort of his bag) but that money generated doesn’t seem to find its way back to the club.

Paritici had us making moves like a football club should. No football man meant levy was making the calls again as to whether we really need that extra CB or a statement signing, which meant we got the same old results - left short, feeling pissed off, let down and like we missed a trick.

I don't think it will make much difference who we put in that position.

Ultimately the core ethos of the business is not geared up for success on the pitch as its main priority.

Until this changes our expectations will never be met as they just aren't in line with the ownership and never will be. Whoever is in as DOF we have seen time and time again that Levy and the board will over rule as and when they want.

We have made some massive changes to the playing sqaud this window though and I think it's been pretty successful.

New keeper, Van Den Ven and Destiny look great. Romero back 100% focused under new management. Porro looks better, think we were quick to judge him.

Bissouma is like a new 100m player, Maddison full of quality. Bentancur to come back, Sarr a good option in there.

I would have liked one more here though as I just cannot get on board with Skipp and Hojberg does not work in this system.

Up top I think we have the biggest issues. Son seems to have lost his ability to beat a man, Deki is static. Richarlison the jury is out. Need BJ to click in this system.

 

[mr ashley]

For some reason, I want to attempt to try and explain thing's in a way that hopefully makes clearer the problems and I think the problems we continually run into can be encapsulated within the Centre back problem.

I'll be clear on my premise, I think the club this summer revealed the truth of the situation fairly clearly that it prioritises the financial aspects of situations over the football aspects. I want to be clear that I believe that owners of football clubs can do that and still be successful, if they do approach it correctly, so my problem isn't the prioritisation, it's how poorly our approach seems to interpret risk/reward within the model.

So the situation is; We wanted another CB who could play in the manner that Ange requires them to, that is from the manager. My personal opinion was that I'd rather sign nobody than a stop gap, I'm explaining this to remove possibility of bias. Ange wanted different but there was also another option which was, sign 2 quality CB's. That choice was available to the club, you can argue the viability but you can't argue that it wasn't a choice.

However I think most of us can agree that it seemed that the approach was to sign VDV and then a player of back up quality. Now the justification for why this hasn't happened is the premise that we couldn't shift deadwood but I want to try and show that it isn't that we couldn't shift deadwood, it was that we was unwilling to buy the back up before we shift the deadwood, even more unwilling to do so early. If you look at what transpired, I think the evidence is on my side. This is a choice by the club that reveals, in my opinion, that they are unwilling to risk financials.

Look at it this way, Lloyd Kelly had 12 months left on his deal, he was homegrown, he was with a favourable agency, supposedly he fit the data model.

Now we didn't attempt to go for this deal until the last 48 hours, the reason this deal was not possible was because, Bournemouth did not have enough time to get a replacement. It was not because we couldn't shift deadwood, because as has been revealed, there were offers on deadline day for Sanchez. This has been reported by multiple different media, ITK. It is pretty nailed on that there were indeed offers for Sanchez on deadline day.

Sanchez didn't move because we were not going to be able to secure a replacement.

Now ask yourselves, what rule states, that we can't first sign for example Lloyd Kelly, even a week before and then try and find a way to shift Sanchez? Because we are unwilling to risk the certainty that we can. The other reason is because it lowers our negotiating position in regards to outgoings because clubs know we have too many players, thus lowering the ability to extract financial value.

This idea that this is a reasonable argument as to why we didn't get Ange what he wanted, I feel I've proven is false, it's a choice by the club. Other clubs would take the risk, it is within the club's choice to take the risk, they choose not to, they did not prioritise the footballing needs of Ange due to the financial risk implications. It is clear in the evidence of what happened.

However now, we have kept Sanchez, any possible value we could have extracted this summer by forcing ourselves into a position of having to sell by signing Kelly, is now gone because by Jan it will be 6 months left on his contract, he sign a pre-agreement with any club outside the country, the club has lost it's control of that situation.

You can argue that some players are immoveable no matter what tactics of coercion you try to convince them that they have to do something they don't have to. As we have seen with Dier, we're going to lose out financially on those players also. There was nothing that could be done about that, our inability to accept that and take risk anyway, may cost us more.

There's now an argument to say that because of the need to needle the small assets to this degree, the big picture has been lost and the big picture is the result implications that this may have on the team. An extraordinary amount of luck is going to be needed to avoid injuries and suspensions to VDV and Romero. What will be the financial implications of the points lost? What have been the financial implications of this approach of the last 4 seasons? The breakdown of relationship with 3 managers, two of which were on 15 million a year and cost the amount they did to hire and remove, the cost of the depreciating assets as the club has regressed and with it, the opinions on the values of our players? The loss of Europe, particularly the Champions League. The impact that that has had on the appeal of being a sponsor to the club, in particular the name on the stadium and the prestige of being the name on the stadium.

We keep arguing because people think that things have to be ordered in a certain way, they don't. We could have risked signing a centre back, it would have furthered increased the tension on the deadwood to realise their chances were limited. We weren't willing to take the risk. Stop trying to argue it was out of their hands, it wasn't, the only thing out of their hands was control over the situation in it's entirety, it was their choice.

Such a great way of expressing the situation

 

[nicdic]

I don't think it will make much difference who we put in that position.

Ultimately the core ethos of the business is not geared up for success on the pitch as its main priority.

Until this changes our expectations will never be met as they just aren't in line with the ownership and never will be. Whoever is in as DOF we have seen time and time again that Levy and the board will over rule as and when they want.

We have made some massive changes to the playing sqaud this window though and I think it's been pretty successful.

New keeper, Van Den Ven and Destiny look great. Romero back 100% focused under new management. Porro looks better, think we were quick to judge him.

Bissouma is like a new 100m player, Maddison full of quality. Bentancur to come back, Sarr a good option in there.

I would have liked one more here though as I just cannot get on board with Skipp and Hojberg does not work in this system.

Up top I think we have the biggest issues. Son seems to have lost his ability to beat a man, Deki is static. Richarlison the jury is out. Need BJ to click in this system.

There's a balance.

I think it's ridiculous to say we're not geared up for success.

We threw massive salaries at Jose and Conte to try and bring success.

We've spent A LOT of money on players over the past few windows.

This window we've spent £40m on Maddison, close to another £40m on VDV, almost £50m on Johnson. It's not like we're not doing anything.

 

[Albertbarich]

I mean I don't think that's true at all. £30m from Fulham for Højbjerg is a huge compromise. Just because people don't like him, doesn't mean that isn't true.

It's not a compromise at all. It was deadline day and the best offer we had received despite him being for sale all summer.

This time next year he will have a year left so it was his last chance of getting that sort of money.

 

[talbot64]

Anybody know when all clubs register their 25 man squads?

End of international break

 

[nicdic]

It's not a compromise at all. It was deadline day and the best offer we had received despite him being for sale all summer.

This time next year he will have a year left so it was his last chance of getting that sort of money.

It seemed like he was going to Atletico all summer, problem is they needed to get their business done, and didn't til yesterday.

£30m for Højbjerg is really cheap. I know loads of people here don't like him, but look at how much midfielders have been going for this summer.

 

[Albertbarich]

There's a balance.

I think it's ridiculous to say we're not geared up for success.

We threw massive salaries at Jose and Conte to try and bring success.

We've spent A LOT of money on players over the past few windows.

This window we've spent £40m on Maddison, close to another £40m on VDV, almost £50m on Johnson. It's not like we're not doing anything.

Sorry to quite two in a row but this has caught my attention.

You mention balance but your post completely misses the nuances of why we haven't achieved success , those nuances are all at the feet of the board.

It also misses the balance of quoting the money spent and not mentioning that every premier league club barring a couple are also dropping massive transfer fees. It's the world we live in.