Comolli: Tottenham’s scouting network is a joke around the world

Joeyboey · Nov 11, 2014

sim0n said:
It's a weird result with Spurs scouting and players bought over the last few years. Most of them ARE good players, but many of them either don't fit the team and/or their are too many similar players in that position already. Some quick examples:

Soldado -good player, overpriced, and his style does not fit Spurs/prem
Sigurdson - good player, WAY too many attacking centre mids in squad (when team needed wingers)
Eriksen - good player, outstanding talent, too many players in squad suited for same position (see winger issue)
Paulinho - good player, showed a great engine, WAY too many midfielders choking selection

Okay, a couple full on busts:

Capoue - average player and Spurs had no need for a player in that position
Chiriches - marauding player from a lower league who is not suited to the prem

Some hits:

Lloris - top player, top signing
Vertonghen - top player, top signing
Dier - looks just about ready to step into a starting CB position (only 4 mil, great move)

Please do not loose sight of the issue by disagreeing with the examples I used as you can insert the players you think are good. It is the acquisition imbalance that is at the centre of this post.

So is the problem the "scouting network?" Or, is the problem a lack of focus at the decision-making level for acquiring players? Seems like loads of centre mid and attacking mid players bought in the last few years, but how many can you field successfully at one time? Most were good/successful players before they played for Spurs, so they didn't just forget how to play after arrival. But being 4+ players deep for these positions, and that's 4 players expecting to be starters, creates it's own own crisis.

Here's a point Sherwood made when he admitted the squad was overloaded. I think he put Bentaleb out there knowing he was as good, if not better, than Capoue. He threw Bentaleb in the face of Spurs' organization to make the point that they do not have to go out and buy every player. The academy produces enough players to balance the squad and they expect to develop, not expect to start. Capoue was a pointless buy at the time and has proved totally unnecessary.

So, there is no balance in the squad created by the similar position/role of the players bought by the club. I am not sure that is the fault of the scouts who recommend players though... Who keeps buying players that a.) Spurs already have a glut of starting level professionals and/or b.) Spurs already have suitable academy players available?

Only Spurs themselves know for sure....

P.S. Comoli is a **** either way

Great question raised about flawed scouting vs flawed decision making!

It's hard to argue that both have been a disaster of late.

Joeyboey · Nov 11, 2014

michaelden said:
King, VdV, Bale and Modric... each rare talents. You CAN'T replace them. You have to try rebuild. Which is what we did. We tried to rebuild a stronger team by having a stronger squad.

Defoe & Parker are worse than what we have. But if you think different , then fine, we'll disagree on that.

And I'm pretty sure that scouting teams would only have an initial input on the mentality of a player. It would be the Coach/ Manager that would have the final say, "I can't train/ work with this guy. He is not what I'm looking for".

Scott Parker was immense for us. A huge reason why we qualified for the champions league. It's incredible how short peoples memories are.

Yes Modric and Bale can never be replaced like for like. I agree. But we could have done a much better job in trying. This is where better scouting and decision making comes into play.

we_all_loved_freund · Nov 11, 2014

Gbspurs said:
What did the amazing scouts Damien had in Spain, Italy and Argentina ever turn up for us?

I remember being linked with a number of players during that time (like Falcao) from South America. I think from the links we were identifying players. Whether DL bought them or not is a different matter.

Luka Van der Bale · Nov 11, 2014

Kendall said:
I stuggle to disagree with or go against the man that brought us our best 3 players (bar King) in my lifetime of supporting Spurs.

Who, Levy?

SamR · Nov 11, 2014

SpurSince57 said:
How much have Burnley spent in total on transfers and wages?

The list is based on turnover, not profit. Our most recent figures show a profit of £4m before tax in 2013. The previous year we nade a £7m loss. Our debt stood at £55m. How much more debt would you like us to run up? What level of interest do you think we will be paying?

Agree on not putting the club at risk with excessive debt BUT what that article suggested is that spurs made - on average - a remarkable player sales profit per season, more so than every other team in the PL.

If we continue to sell our best players and replace them with unknown quantities to starve off excessive debt accumulated from the stadium project, we will continue to fall from what was a very promising position in world football...and the further we fall the harder it will be to acquire the much needed sponsorship for the stadium build.

If this whole poor scouting network is true...it would be an extreme inadequacy when our whole model has been about replacing our current shiny with an array of hopeful shinnies.

Sevens · Nov 11, 2014

Joeyboey said:
Scott Parker was immense for us. A huge reason why we qualified for the champions league. It's incredible how short peoples memories are.

Yes Modric and Bale can never be replaced like for like. I agree. But we could have done a much better job in trying. This is where better scouting and decision making comes into play.

Not in terms of ability but I would actually say that Dembele is similar to Modric in terms of receiving the ball in a deep area under pressure but then retaining possession by running with the ball. Of course he lacks Modric's passing ability but then I don't think we help Dembele that much as he is quite one footed (left). If we played with a left midfielder next to Dembele I think he'd release the ball a lot faster.

Again nowhere near the ability level but Townsend is like Bale if played on the left. The bottom line is AVB came in and revolutionised the team overnight. If he had been more patient and stuck with Redknapp's style whilst he slowly integrated his kind of players into the side we'd have been better off. Instead he ditched to the 4-4-x formation, sold VDV (who may not have put up much fight leaving but he would have stayed also) and then had us playing a 4-2-3-1 when we didn't have the right players to play it. We've never addressed this problem despite bringing in several players.

Even now I look at the team and think that the below team would be significantly better than what we have:

-----------------Lloris------------------
Walker---Dawson----Verts----Rose
Lennon--Sandro--Dembele--Townsend

Or even Huddlestone or Mason instead of Dembele. Then up top you could play a combination of either a number 10 like Eriksen or Lamela alongside a striker or even better play two of Kane/Ade/Soldado with one of them dropping deep from an initial forward starting position. The above team is balanced, has width and would be defensively solid.

And if you played Kane and Ade what does that demonstrate? That the entire team is made up of players that were purchased 5 transfer windows ago and there lies our problem. We've bought a load of players that simply aren't good enough.

We are also back to the same problem we had with Comolli in my opinion. After Carrick's departure we continually failed to find a defensive midfielder. Redknapp's biggest readdress of the team was to bring in Palacios. Then he brought in both Sandro and Parker. We are back to that stage again where we don't have a single one at the club of the required quality.

Sevens · Nov 11, 2014

Joeyboey said:
Scott Parker was immense for us. A huge reason why we qualified for the champions league. It's incredible how short peoples memories are.

Yes Modric and Bale can never be replaced like for like. I agree. But we could have done a much better job in trying. This is where better scouting and decision making comes into play.

Parker was the missing piece. His partnership with Modric was fantastic as neither of them gave the ball away cheaply, both were excellent supporting other players in possession and both did a good job defensively.

SteveH · Nov 11, 2014

Other than Chelsea who dont really count.
It must be West Ham and Southampton at the top of the successful transfer tree this season.

Comolli is a charlatan. There is so much luck involved when you buy players from the second tier quality wise as we, Liverpool and Everton do. Sometimes you get a gem like Bale, Suarez and Luka (and I can't think of many others) normally you get a Hendersen or a Chadli, good but no cigar.

Our current squad is good if a little large and no way near as poor as the doommongers and the media would have us believe.

JamieSpursCommunityUser · Nov 11, 2014

SpurSince57 said:
How much have Burnley spent in total on transfers and wages?

The list is based on turnover, not profit. Our most recent figures show a profit of £4m before tax in 2013. The previous year we nade a £7m loss. Our debt stood at £55m. How much more debt would you like us to run up? What level of interest do you think we will be paying?

I've seen these figures, we have different interpretations.

Mine is that ENIC has leant the club £40m interest free to pay things like professional fees on the stadium.

Simply because it only owns 85% of the club, and why should the other 15% get the benefit of turning the loan into equity? Fair enough.

We also took an institutional loan - pre City - to go out and build a CL squad and the training ground, hence we have £8m of interest to pay over something like 20 years.

It's not like THFC has run up it's credit card bill on strippers and champagne.

Also we still own Spurs Lodge which is prime Chigwell real estate.

ENIC will get that back when they sell of bits of NPD, sell the club, or buy out the 15% and turn the loan it into equity. It's paper debt held in assets, not frittered away on players.

So the club is using most of the £52.5m each year (generated from mugs like us) - that it's NOT spending on player wages - to pay off debts associated with property deals which ENIC profits from.

Win Win for ENIC. But ultimately all that business with the round kicky thing, sadly, suffers (compounded by horrendous management decisions, and a destabilising culture of relentless change).

If ENIC weren't small time, they'd have leant the club £250m directly from Joe's pocket (or Joe borrowing against his assets) - with which to build the stadium 5 years ago.

They'd have gotten their money back and more from a naming rights deal and increased revenues, and would have sold THFC for a vast profit.

But ENIC are small time. They want risk free profit, and in vast numbers.

michaelden · Nov 11, 2014

JamieSpursCommunityUser said:
But ENIC are small time. They want risk free profit, and in vast numbers.

And this is why ENIC own us and not you. You're too big time for us. Go take your financial savvy and buy West Ham and take them to the CL

It's easy to say, "Blow £250M now on players", but have you ever earnt £250M? And if you had, would you just piss it up the wall on a high risk venture?

And then there's the issue of would the players come? Yes if the wages were right. Right in this case means CL level & higher.. before we have CL. So the risk is now lengthen and the return lessened.

And if we failed to get CL... we can't sell players who won't move, just look at Lennon & Ade.

And if we used the £250M to help finance the stadium, we'd still be about 8-15 years from recouping that initial investment before we could splash the wonga on players or heaven forbid, use some money to live it up. I mean, ENIC aren't a charity, we can't expect them to not draw dividends.

Kendall · Nov 11, 2014

BringBack_leGin said:
I accept that. But when we signed him, we had Lennon who had played three seasons and done far more good than bad.

He'd arguably just had his worst season in a Spurs shirt though and we needed competition on the right.

Kendall · Nov 11, 2014

JamieSpursCommunityUser said:
I've seen these figures, we have different interpretations.

Mine is that ENIC has leant the club £40m interest free to pay things like professional fees on the stadium.

Simply because it only owns 85% of the club, and why should the other 15% get the benefit of turning the loan into equity? Fair enough.

We also took an institutional loan - pre City - to go out and build a CL squad and the training ground, hence we have £8m of interest to pay over something like 20 years.

It's not like THFC has run up it's credit card bill on strippers and champagne.

Also we still own Spurs Lodge which is prime Chigwell real estate.

ENIC will get that back when they sell of bits of NPD, sell the club, or buy out the 15% and turn the loan it into equity. It's paper debt held in assets, not frittered away on players.

So the club is using most of the £52.5m each year (generated from mugs like us) - that it's NOT spending on player wages - to pay off debts associated with property deals which IT benefits from.

Win Win for ENIC. But ultimately all that business with the round kicky thing, sadly, suffers (compounded by horrendous management decisions, and a destabilising culture of relentless change).

If ENIC weren't small time, they'd have leant the club £250m directly from Joe's pocket (or Joe borrowing against his assets) - and we'd have built the stadium 5 years ago.

They'd have gotten their money back and more from a naming rights deal and increased revenues, and would have sold THFC for a vast profit.

But ENIC are small time. They want risk free profit, and in vast numbers.

I do tend to agree with the small time/lack of excercising of Billionaire muscle from Lewis. When ENIC took over, Lewis was worth something like 3-4bn and could've given us that kick long before City and a couple of years before Chelsea and quite possibly made it back already with a full stadium of 60k.

Kendall · Nov 11, 2014

michaelden said:
And this is why ENIC own us and not you. You're too big time for us. Go take your financial savvy and buy West Ham and take them to the CL

It's easy to say, "Blow £250M now on players", but have you ever earnt £250M? And if you had, would you just piss it up the wall on a high risk venture?

And then there's the issue of would the players come? Yes if the wages were right. Right in this case means CL level & higher.. before we have CL. So the risk is now lengthen and the return lessened.

And if we failed to get CL... we can't sell players who won't move, just look at Lennon & Ade.

And if we used the £250M to help finance the stadium, we'd still be about 8-15 years from recouping that initial investment before we could splash the wonga on players or heaven forbid, use some money to live it up. I mean, ENIC aren't a charity, we can't expect them to not draw dividends.

He said £250m on the stadium... well, that's how I interpreted it anyway, which would've been pretty low risk at the time. It would've been an efective way of the club raising cheap credit and he would hardly have missed it in the interim!

Lufti · Nov 11, 2014

Joeyboey said:
Scott Parker was immense for us. A huge reason why we qualified for the champions league. It's incredible how short peoples memories are.

Yes Modric and Bale can never be replaced like for like. I agree. But we could have done a much better job in trying. This is where better scouting and decision making comes into play.

Even though he signed after we played in the CL? Impressive

michaelden · Nov 11, 2014

Kendall said:
He said £250m on the stadium... well, that's how I interpreted it anyway, which would've been pretty low risk at the time. It would've been an efective way of the club raising cheap credit and he would hardly have missed it in the interim!

I'm pretty sure, but known to be wrong, 5 years ago we were building a worldy training facility & the financial markets were only 8 months into the biggest crash since 1930s.

So for "Big Joe", who had just had something to the tune of £1.5B wiped off his fortune, to suddenly go, "Fuck it! Here Dan, take another £250M and spunk it on another asset that won't be built without significant political intervention, and will only start to earn me income after ROI about 8 years later". Well he'd a big gambler and have more shit for brains than my old history teacher.

Kendall · Nov 11, 2014

michaelden said:
I'm pretty sure, but known to be wrong, 5 years ago we were building a worldy training facility & the financial markets were only 8 months into the biggest crash since 1930s.

So for "Big Joe", who had just had something to the tune of £1.5B wiped off his fortune, to suddenly go, "Fuck it! Here Dan, take another £250M and spunk it on another asset that won't be built without significant political intervention, and will only start to earn me income after ROI about 8 years later". Well he'd a big gambler and have more shit for brains than my old history teacher.

Sorry I didn't see him mention 5 years ago, I meant his investment when ENIC took over control, way back when, pre-Chelsea splurge.

But you said it yourself, Lewis lost a fortune on Bear Sterns, he is so often a risk taker, a well documented contrarian, so his lack of use of his own financial muscle is a bit strange/outof character when it comes to Spurs. Lets be honest, spending £250m on a piece of property in London was never going to lose him money in the long run.

michaelden · Nov 11, 2014

Kendall said:
Sorry I didn't see him mention 5 years ago, I meant his investment when ENIC took over control, way back when, pre-Chelsea splurge.

But you said it yourself, Lewis lost a fortune on Bear Sterns, he is so often a risk taker, a well documented contrarian, so his lack of use of his own financial muscle is a bit strange/outof character when it comes to Spurs. Lets be honest, spending £250m on a piece of property in London was never going to lose him money in the long run.

No sweat.

On that note I agree. If the stadium had been priority 0 instead of 5-6 we might be in a top stadium and have a transfer budget. I do feel we could do with more from ENIC, but in comparison to Learner, That Icelandic dick or the Dildo Brothers, I'm happy enough with ENIC

michaelden · Nov 11, 2014

Back on topic, I do think our scouting needs improving too. I don't care who the messenger was, the message holds truth and we can all feel it, every time the team plays

CowInAComa · Nov 11, 2014

Sevens said:
...

Even now I look at the team and think that the below team would be significantly better than what we have:

-----------------Lloris------------------
Walker---Dawson----Verts----Rose
Lennon--Sandro--Dembele--Townsend

Or even Huddlestone or Mason instead of Dembele. Then up top you could play a combination of either a number 10 like Eriksen or Lamela alongside a striker or even better play two of Kane/Ade/Soldado with one of them dropping deep from an initial forward starting position. The above team is balanced, has width and would be defensively solid.

......

Swap one of Townsend or Lennon for Gylfi, and play Eriksen/Lamela off Soldado and Im in (more of a 3-5-1 though).

shelfmonkey · Nov 11, 2014

An overhaul?!! It's nonexistent!! It would be nice to have one!! If/when we do get one you can bet yer bollocks that Levy's main, probably only, proviso will be that each player must have a significant sell on value. I am convinced that Levy's only remit is to raise the value and global profile, by way of CL qualification, of the club and that he and ENIC don't give two shits about actual silverware in the cupboard, if Comolli's comment lends more proof to that scenario then I couldn't give a fuck what his motives are or how much of a **** he is!!

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

Comolli: Tottenham’s scouting network is a joke around the world

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

BSoDL candidate for SW London

Well-Known Member

Knight of the Fat Fanny

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Knight of the Fat Fanny

Well-Known Member

Knight of the Fat Fanny

Knight of the Fat Fanny

Well-Known Member

Weird is different, different is interesting.

Similar threads