What's new

Jose Mourinho

How do you feel about Mourinho appointment

  • Excited - silverware here we come baby

    Votes: 666 46.7%
  • Meh - will give him a chance and hope he is successful

    Votes: 468 32.8%
  • Horrified - praying for the day he'll fuck off

    Votes: 292 20.5%

  • Total voters
    1,426

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2011
21,907
78,646
Ill start this by saying its great to hear Mourinho say he wants to target plays with mental fortitude. That leaves me optimistic were looking for the right sort of thing.



Mourinho didnt say that when he arrived. He said the opposite. He said he appreciated the fact that for once there was honesty from the owners about the resources and expectations and that he was happy with that.

Happy to be corrected with a link but otherwise dont pretend Mourinho is voicing your opinion.



I was interested to see whether you were right. So I checked, going back to 2015 (time to see what happened to duds under Klopp).

Karius - 2 years before being sold
Ings - 4 years
Clyne - 5 years. Unsold, just left on a free.
Benteke - 1 year, sold at 15m loss.
Grujic - 4.5 years and unsold.

What stood out was that they bought remarkably few duds in that time but they havent been particularly good at selling them. Benteke is the exception but the sold him for a big loss.

Chelsea's turn.

Morata - 2 years.
Bakayoko - 3 years unsold
Drinkwater - 3 years unsold
Zappacosta - 3 years unsold
These 4 alone are standing at a total of 105m in wasted money from that summer (10m loss on Morata, others big fees and negligible loan fees recouped on unsold players).
Batshuyai - 4 years unsold.
Luiz - 3 years, 26m loss
Baba Abdul Rahmen - 5 years, unsold
Kenedy - 5 years, unsold
Michael Hector - 4.5 years
Nathan - 5 years
Papy Djilobodji - 1 year

Chelsea have lost a very large amount of money on bad players that it has taken them 18 months or less to sell 1 time out of 11. That was the last player on the list who was sold to Sunderland. Perhaps equivalent to our Wimmer deal with Stoke.

They key difference is that Liverpool and Chelsea have loaned these duds out more often. That liberates room in the squad lists and avoids having an unhappy character around. However it does nothing for their sale price or even their capacity to be sold (perhaps surprisingly!).

Conclusion: Liverpool and Chelsea do have problems selling players who have not been a success. 75% of the time (12 out of 16) they take three years or longer to be sold and this is often done at a loss (huge losses in Chelsea's case).
I guess I was reflecting poorly then. Thanks for double checking. Looking at some of those players though, I'd say that some weren't duds to the extent of Janssen, Njie or Nkoudou.

Morata, Batshuayi and Luiz still had levels of success. Even Bakayoko featured frequently for Chelsea. I think this keeps the players in the eye of others.

Although maybe we just bought really poor players
 

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2011
21,907
78,646
Ill start this by saying its great to hear Mourinho say he wants to target plays with mental fortitude. That leaves me optimistic were looking for the right sort of thing.



Mourinho didnt say that when he arrived. He said the opposite. He said he appreciated the fact that for once there was honesty from the owners about the resources and expectations and that he was happy with that.

Happy to be corrected with a link but otherwise dont pretend Mourinho is voicing your opinion.



I was interested to see whether you were right. So I checked, going back to 2015 (time to see what happened to duds under Klopp).

Karius - 2 years before being sold
Ings - 4 years
Clyne - 5 years. Unsold, just left on a free.
Benteke - 1 year, sold at 15m loss.
Grujic - 4.5 years and unsold.

What stood out was that they bought remarkably few duds in that time but they havent been particularly good at selling them. Benteke is the exception but the sold him for a big loss.

Chelsea's turn.

Morata - 2 years.
Bakayoko - 3 years unsold
Drinkwater - 3 years unsold
Zappacosta - 3 years unsold
These 4 alone are standing at a total of 105m in wasted money from that summer (10m loss on Morata, others big fees and negligible loan fees recouped on unsold players).
Batshuyai - 4 years unsold.
Luiz - 3 years, 26m loss
Baba Abdul Rahmen - 5 years, unsold
Kenedy - 5 years, unsold
Michael Hector - 4.5 years
Nathan - 5 years
Papy Djilobodji - 1 year

Chelsea have lost a very large amount of money on bad players that it has taken them 18 months or less to sell 1 time out of 11. That was the last player on the list who was sold to Sunderland. Perhaps equivalent to our Wimmer deal with Stoke.

They key difference is that Liverpool and Chelsea have loaned these duds out more often. That liberates room in the squad lists and avoids having an unhappy character around. However it does nothing for their sale price or even their capacity to be sold (perhaps surprisingly!).

Conclusion: Liverpool and Chelsea do have problems selling players who have not been a success. 75% of the time (12 out of 16) they take three years or longer to be sold and this is often done at a loss (huge losses in Chelsea's case).
...and Liverpool's examples;

Karius got to the CL final, he hadn't done too badly but was capable of spectacular errors. The final killed him.

Ings - was a good signing but got a terrible injury.

Clyne - actually played a lot of games in his first 2 years. The emergence of TAA finished his time there.

So I'm not sure if you can say they had problems getting rid of duds when most of them were first 11 players for a long period.
 

agrdavidsfan

Ledley's Knee!
Aug 25, 2005
10,918
13,352
I have tried to clear my head and think about it all over again.

When he was hired all our itk promised us he was a new José who would play this new style of football and Sacramento was fundamental to this so I went back and found some Lille games and watched them to see what his influence was also like there and then I done some further research on what others have said about him and it’s safe to say he definitely is not from the school of Jose’s pragmatic approach which we are currently operating with his training sessions we are as well do not look pragmatic.

So why has José reverted to type and stared implanting this slow turgid counter attack football that just doesn’t seem to work?

To me it looks as if the in the corona break he realised about 7 things

1 x Toby is declining and is not first choice which is weird as Jose wanted him while at United

2 x We have no real viable midfield pairing and it is in fact square pegs round hole

3 x The only viable way we can create things is through Aurier so this means we have to carry him and Sissoko just seems to be a man on a mission with covering his mate so when he starts in midfield we get ripped apart.

4 x Dier & Sanchez is his pairing he obviously sees something in them that he thinks can work and for what it’s worth I think he’s right? Dier and Sanchez have made mistakes but to be fair we could have Maldini and Baresi in our pairing and they would still get ripped apart the problem is not the centre of defence but the midfield balance in front of it.

5 x the midfield Jose knows we have a problem he knows he has no option here Harry Winks can’t carry out the role he wants him to do and he knows N’dombele is definitely not the answer to his problems so his option c and d are gedson or skipp both unproven and learning he may now be at the stage where one of these has to play or he has to find another solution which could be Dier or Sanchez even moved into the middle.

6 x Jose knows the squad can’t do what he wants so he’s reverted to a powerful sit deep and counter team as he thinks this our best way of playing as if we try to attack or play the pressing game with our current squad it’s good night.

7 x he knows this season is a write off and thinks maybe no Europa and a clear fixture list next season to rebuild with a smaller squad is the answer.

So he is now in a place where he just tries to get us not to concede and hope one of our players individual brilliance i.e sonny,Harry,stevie pinches us a goal.


Overall in parts against Sheffield and West Ham we could actually see patterns of play starting to develop which showed there has been work done. We also showed vs United we can stay solid but individual mistakes are still being made which is either from mental tiredness or plain panic and I think it’s the latter.

I think there is a chain of events in our team

1 Aurier is always out of position and teams now know we line up with 3 stay at home system so to counter this most teams now attack the left hand side and it’s pretty obvious the midfield pairing aren’t the defensive minded type but sissoko seems to have been given the job of covering the right hand side but the issue there is Sissoko is also our defensive midfielder so as soon as he goes roaming to cover his mate it leaves gaps everywhere, where all sorts of players start to go into stupid situations.

The next problem is our attackers they simply do not do enough defensively because we start so deep with the block they are defending tiredly if you watch the goals we concede you can see the patterns of play that undo us it’s so easy to read!. But at fault for the last four goals the same pattern has been responsible no midfield takes responsibility

1 x United for penalty Winks didn’t come across to help dier, he gave away the pen.

1 x first Sheffield United goal both centre midfielders switch off Berge drops deep easy finish.

2 x United goal Sissoko is knackered and gives up chasing team is pulled apart dier and Davies make a mistake mainly Davies united score.

3 x well it’s even more of a mess but again aurier and the midfield get pulled apart we concede.

I think now we know champions league is out of the question we need to take a hit and Jose also needs to be brave and reshuffle the pack.

I think it’s time for the 4-2-1-3

Lloris
Gedson/Serge/Sissoko
Dier
Sanchez
Davies

Skipp

Lo Celso
N’dombele

Bergiwjn
Kane
Son


Skipp should be good basically to just patrol and area and give the ball to Lo celso nothing more and we start again.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
I guess I was reflecting poorly then. Thanks for double checking. Looking at some of those players though, I'd say that some weren't duds to the extent of Janssen, Njie or Nkoudou.

Morata, Batshuayi and Luiz still had levels of success. Even Bakayoko featured frequently for Chelsea. I think this keeps the players in the eye of others.

Although maybe we just bought really poor players
Yeh, it's not so useful to argue over they really were duds or not. Just remove them from the list and the point stands. Bakayoko played the first year and has been on loan for two years since. Batshuyai played the first 18 months and has been on loan for 2.5 years since. Neither were seen as successes by their club.

One difference is that we lost very little money from bad acquisitions. Njie and Nkoudou were speculative signings, like many of the players on the Liverpool and Chelsea lists. We didnt have any expensive flops though aside from Janssen. But that pales into insignificance next to Bakayoko, Drinkwater and Zappacosta, any one of which will entail bigger losses than VJ. Chelsea went and signed 3 useless Janssens in one summer! Chelsea lost a similar amount on Clyne who left on a free recently and Benteke was a similarly bad signing (for someone who as PL proven as well!).

Tottenham handle the bad side of transfers well. What frustrates is that there arent enough shrewd, good signings made. That is not a criticism that can apply to last summer but has more weight looking further back.
 

JayB

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2011
6,652
26,046
Ill start this by saying its great to hear Mourinho say he wants to target plays with mental fortitude. That leaves me optimistic were looking for the right sort of thing.



Mourinho didnt say that when he arrived. He said the opposite. He said he appreciated the fact that for once there was honesty from the owners about the resources and expectations and that he was happy with that.

Happy to be corrected with a link but otherwise dont pretend Mourinho is voicing your opinion.



I was interested to see whether you were right. So I checked, going back to 2015 (time to see what happened to duds under Klopp).

Karius - 2 years before being sold
Ings - 4 years
Clyne - 5 years. Unsold, just left on a free.
Benteke - 1 year, sold at 15m loss.
Grujic - 4.5 years and unsold.

What stood out was that they bought remarkably few duds in that time but they havent been particularly good at selling them. Benteke is the exception but the sold him for a big loss.

Chelsea's turn.

Morata - 2 years.
Bakayoko - 3 years unsold
Drinkwater - 3 years unsold
Zappacosta - 3 years unsold
These 4 alone are standing at a total of 105m in wasted money from that summer (10m loss on Morata, others big fees and negligible loan fees recouped on unsold players).
Batshuyai - 4 years unsold.
Luiz - 3 years, 26m loss
Baba Abdul Rahmen - 5 years, unsold
Kenedy - 5 years, unsold
Michael Hector - 4.5 years
Nathan - 5 years
Papy Djilobodji - 1 year

Chelsea have lost a very large amount of money on bad players that it has taken them 18 months or less to sell 1 time out of 11. That was the last player on the list who was sold to Sunderland. Perhaps equivalent to our Wimmer deal with Stoke.

They key difference is that Liverpool and Chelsea have loaned these duds out more often. That liberates room in the squad lists and avoids having an unhappy character around. However it does nothing for their sale price or even their capacity to be sold (perhaps surprisingly!).

Conclusion: Liverpool and Chelsea do have problems selling players who have not been a success. 75% of the time (12 out of 16) they take three years or longer to be sold and this is often done at a loss (huge losses in Chelsea's case).
So many of those players were sent out on loan, which underscores that clubs with greater financial means than us have been far more willing to absorb the hit they take when they make a bad transfer. At Chelsea and Liverpool the duds are cast away from the squad and replaced regardless of whether or not the club is able to find a buyer.

We on the other hand have not been willing to sign the replacements unless we first shift the deadwood on permanent deals, at least under Levy's modus operandi. Look no further than Wanyama, who sat on our books for two and a half seasons after his knee injury and has not yet been replaced. A well-run club would have brought in a suitable first-choice DM the summer after the injury and worried about getting rid of him as an independent matter. We on the other hand allowed a massive hole in the team to fester for three fucking seasons because we couldn't shift him, and then he fucking left on a free after all that time and wasted opportunity anyway! All the while he was collecting wages, never playing, and seeing his value sink further and further, rendering it less likely that we'd ever sort out the situation. It was a complete shambles.

It just goes to show that Levy's insistence that you don't have to spend money to compete for trophies is at best hopelessly naive and at worst a bad-faith justification offered to disguise the truth of the matter, which is that football is secondary to financial return for ENIC. It may be true that you don't have to spend massive sums to bring in good players, but it isn't true that when you've made a bad transfer or when an injury has rendered an important player unfit for purpose that you can simply hope and wish away the problem instead of acting on it, which almost invariably involves some form of financial loss. With the league more competitive than it has been in recent memory, the current model is going to get us absolutely nowhere.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
So many of those players were sent out on loan, which underscores that clubs with greater financial means than us have been far more willing to absorb the hit they take when they make a bad transfer. At Chelsea and Liverpool the duds are cast away from the squad and replaced regardless of whether or not the club is able to find a buyer.

We on the other hand have not been willing to sign the replacements unless we first shift the deadwood on permanent deals, at least under Levy's modus operandi. Look no further than Wanyama, who sat on our books for two and a half seasons after his knee injury and has not yet been replaced. A well-run club would have brought in a suitable first-choice DM the summer after the injury and worried about getting rid of him as an independent matter. We on the other hand allowed a massive hole in the team to fester for three fucking seasons because we couldn't shift him, and then he fucking left on a free after all that time and wasted opportunity anyway! All the while he was collecting wages, never playing, and seeing his value sink further and further, rendering it less likely that we'd ever sort out the situation. It was a complete shambles.

It just goes to show that Levy's insistence that you don't have to spend money to compete for trophies is at best hopelessly naive and at worst a bad-faith justification offered to disguise the truth of the matter, which is that football is secondary to financial return for ENIC. It may be true that you don't have to spend massive sums to bring in good players, but it isn't true that when you've made a bad transfer or when an injury has rendered an important player unfit for purpose that you can simply hope and wish away the problem instead of acting on it, which almost invariably involves some form of financial loss. With the league more competitive than it has been in recent memory, the current model is going to get us absolutely nowhere.
You have probably made up your mind so Ill just point out some contrasting facts/questions.

- When Chelsea and Liverpool send players out on loan it does not increase their value or the likelihood that they will be sold.

- It is true that richer clubs can absorb bigger losses. The trick then is to make us richer so we too can absorb bigger losses?

- Whose decision was it not to replace Wanyama? How do you know? How have you factored Pochettino's new MANAGER status into this answer?

- You say that "when an injury has rendered an important player unfit for purpose that you can simply hope and wish away the problem instead of acting on it". As hindsight is always 20/20, lets examine a player in this situation going forward. Should we sell Kane? If not, why not given what you have said?
 

JayB

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2011
6,652
26,046
You have probably made up your mind so Ill just point out some contrasting facts/questions.

- When Chelsea and Liverpool send players out on loan it does not increase their value or the likelihood that they will be sold.

- It is true that richer clubs can absorb bigger losses. The trick then is to make us richer so we too can absorb bigger losses?

- Whose decision was it not to replace Wanyama? How do you know? How have you factored Pochettino's new MANAGER status into this answer?

- You say that "when an injury has rendered an important player unfit for purpose that you can simply hope and wish away the problem instead of acting on it". As hindsight is always 20/20, lets examine a player in this situation going forward. Should we sell Kane? If not, why not given what you have said?
With respect to injuries, it's obviously a case-by-case basis. Kane picks up contact injuries but is perfectly fine when he's fit. Wanyama and Dembele, on the other hand, clearly had chronic issues. We sat on our hands and did nothing to resolve their situations as the quality of our midfield degraded from being arguably the best in the league to squarely mid-table quality. We have to be more proactive in solving the glaring issues in the squad even if it means some financial investment.

There was a thread on reddit yesterday debating ENIC's role in our downfall and one poster made the observation that Sunderland and Brighton have a significantly higher net spend than us over the past decade. Sunderland and Brighton. I completely reject the notion that it is only the wealthiest clubs that make investments in their playing squad. We've been virtually alone in adhering to the zero net spend model. When problems develop we take ages to resolve them, it's just not sustainable in any sense from a footballing perspective however good it might look from a financial perspective.
 
Last edited:

emiley heskey

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
1,121
1,832
With respect to injuries, it's obviously a case-by-case basis. Kane picks up contact injuries but is perfectly fine when he's fit. Wanyama and Dembele, on the other hand, clearly had chronic issues. We sat on our hands and did nothing to resolve their situations as the quality of our midfield degraded from being arguably the best in the league to squarely mid-table quality. We have to be more proactive in solving the glaring issues in the squad even if it means some financial investment.

There was a thread on reddit yesterday debating ENIC's role in our downfall and one poster made the observation that Sunderland and Brighton have a significantly higher net spend than us over the past decade. Sunderland and Brighton. I completely reject the notion that it is only the wealthiest clubs that make investments in their playing squad. We've been virtually alone in adhering to the zero net spend model. When problems develop we take ages to resolve them, it's just not sustainable in any sense from a footballing perspective however good it might look from a financial perspect.

We really needed to buy proper Central Midfielder back in 2017 or 2018 when it was sure Dembele can't give us 90 minutes anymore. When Wolves signed Ruben Neves when they were in Championship, that's what I called ambition. We thought Winks can be our Dembele Replacement and Wanyama can be replaced by Dier or Winks/Sissoko Combo can help us remain in top 4 ... I remember when Poch first came in, his primary midfield combo was Bentaleb-Mason, Then next season it was Dier - Dembele as we missed out on Morgan Schneiderlin, Then the next season it was Wanyama - Dembele and this midfield combo elevated us to the next level...
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,232
57,391
The players and Levy are constants in this mess. But many on here argued the squad was great but underperforming and Poch had to give way for a winner to seal the deal. And Levy has spent 60M, 48M, 27M, and 30M of 4 new players for this season, plus a couple of loans.

We're not paupers nor averse to spending a few bob. But the longer strategic approach which was in decent shape despite the dip has been shredded. That strategy had coherence and consecutive top 4 finishes and a CL final.

Now we have a pre-Jol look about us and most claiming we're back in long term project mode, possibly including Mourinho. And what looks like years away from those recent heights. What a mess.

As a different perspective on that, I'd say that the squad overperformed for Poch for a couple of seasons and then sunk back down to a more realistic level. We punched above our weight for a while and Levy expected that to continue without investment. Came unstuck though.
 

spids

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
6,647
27,841
The main difference between Chelsea and Liverpool and us in the last 5 years is that they have both generated massive fees by selling players and re-invested to re-shape their first XI. At Chelsea Hazard, Courtais and Costa all wanted out (despite them winning the title!) and they raised ~£170M in fees. At Liverpool Sterling, Suarez and Coutinho all wanted out so out they went, with ~£240M mainly being used to build Klopp's current squad.

Yet when this happens to us we see it as a sign of weakness that we sell a top player and it is all doom and gloom. What actually preceded Poch's golden years was a series of years where we cashed in on our best players to recycle the squad (Carrick, Berbatov, Modric, Bale).

The last 5-6 years we have not really sold anyone of note (other than Walker). The players we have not replaced have generally got old (Verts / Alderweireld) or injured (Wanyama / Dembele / Rose), or refused to sign a contract (Eriksen). And without fees coming in we have not been able to re-invest, and have used other income to build a £1 Billion stadium. It sounds ridiculous to say it, but if players like Dele and Kane are not 100% committed to the next 3 years maybe history suggests selling them and re-investing is not the worst thing to do. For me the most important ingredient for success is 100% of the players believing in the manager and the club. Believing in the project. For the majority of the Poch era everyone at the club was 100% pulling in the same direction. That has not been the case for over 18 months now. It is time to devise a plan, and re-build the team.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,957
I have tried to clear my head and think about it all over again.

When he was hired all our itk promised us he was a new José who would play this new style of football and Sacramento was fundamental to this so I went back and found some Lille games and watched them to see what his influence was also like there and then I done some further research on what others have said about him and it’s safe to say he definitely is not from the school of Jose’s pragmatic approach which we are currently operating with his training sessions we are as well do not look pragmatic.

So why has José reverted to type and stared implanting this slow turgid counter attack football that just doesn’t seem to work?

To me it looks as if the in the corona break he realised about 7 things

1 x Toby is declining and is not first choice which is weird as Jose wanted him while at United

2 x We have no real viable midfield pairing and it is in fact square pegs round hole

3 x The only viable way we can create things is through Aurier so this means we have to carry him and Sissoko just seems to be a man on a mission with covering his mate so when he starts in midfield we get ripped apart.

4 x Dier & Sanchez is his pairing he obviously sees something in them that he thinks can work and for what it’s worth I think he’s right? Dier and Sanchez have made mistakes but to be fair we could have Maldini and Baresi in our pairing and they would still get ripped apart the problem is not the centre of defence but the midfield balance in front of it.

5 x the midfield Jose knows we have a problem he knows he has no option here Harry Winks can’t carry out the role he wants him to do and he knows N’dombele is definitely not the answer to his problems so his option c and d are gedson or skipp both unproven and learning he may now be at the stage where one of these has to play or he has to find another solution which could be Dier or Sanchez even moved into the middle.

6 x Jose knows the squad can’t do what he wants so he’s reverted to a powerful sit deep and counter team as he thinks this our best way of playing as if we try to attack or play the pressing game with our current squad it’s good night.

7 x he knows this season is a write off and thinks maybe no Europa and a clear fixture list next season to rebuild with a smaller squad is the answer.

So he is now in a place where he just tries to get us not to concede and hope one of our players individual brilliance i.e sonny,Harry,stevie pinches us a goal.


Overall in parts against Sheffield and West Ham we could actually see patterns of play starting to develop which showed there has been work done. We also showed vs United we can stay solid but individual mistakes are still being made which is either from mental tiredness or plain panic and I think it’s the latter.

I think there is a chain of events in our team

1 Aurier is always out of position and teams now know we line up with 3 stay at home system so to counter this most teams now attack the left hand side and it’s pretty obvious the midfield pairing aren’t the defensive minded type but sissoko seems to have been given the job of covering the right hand side but the issue there is Sissoko is also our defensive midfielder so as soon as he goes roaming to cover his mate it leaves gaps everywhere, where all sorts of players start to go into stupid situations.

The next problem is our attackers they simply do not do enough defensively because we start so deep with the block they are defending tiredly if you watch the goals we concede you can see the patterns of play that undo us it’s so easy to read!. But at fault for the last four goals the same pattern has been responsible no midfield takes responsibility

1 x United for penalty Winks didn’t come across to help dier, he gave away the pen.

1 x first Sheffield United goal both centre midfielders switch off Berge drops deep easy finish.

2 x United goal Sissoko is knackered and gives up chasing team is pulled apart dier and Davies make a mistake mainly Davies united score.

3 x well it’s even more of a mess but again aurier and the midfield get pulled apart we concede.

I think now we know champions league is out of the question we need to take a hit and Jose also needs to be brave and reshuffle the pack.

I think it’s time for the 4-2-1-3

Lloris
Gedson/Serge/Sissoko
Dier
Sanchez
Davies

Skipp

Lo Celso
N’dombele

Bergiwjn
Kane
Son


Skipp should be good basically to just patrol and area and give the ball to Lo celso nothing more and we start again.

I agree with all of that except Ndombele being in the team, he just doesn’t deserve it. Dele, Gedson, winks are all ahead of him for that third midfield position if you ask me.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
With respect to injuries, it's obviously a case-by-case basis. Kane picks up contact injuries but is perfectly fine when he's fit. Wanyama and Dembele, on the other hand, clearly had chronic issues. We sat on our hands and did nothing to resolve their situations as the quality of our midfield degraded from being arguably the best in the league to squarely mid-table quality. We have to be more proactive in solving the glaring issues in the squad even if it means some financial investment.

There was a thread on reddit yesterday debating ENIC's role in our downfall and one poster made the observation that Sunderland and Brighton have a significantly higher net spend than us over the past decade. Sunderland and Brighton. I completely reject the notion that it is only the wealthiest clubs that make investments in their playing squad. We've been virtually alone in adhering to the zero net spend model. When problems develop we take ages to resolve them, it's just not sustainable in any sense from a footballing perspective however good it might look from a financial perspective.
I think a Kane backup is essential because Kane has lost something through a run of injuries. He needs to be rested sometimes when fit. Wanyama did not clearly have issues from the off. That is something we know now but only became apparent after a period of time. Last summer we fixed the midfield issue with two of the best players we could buy. Now we probably need a DM and I hope we will buy that player.

I am going to take your response as an implicit admission that what we are doing off the pitch is good and as it increases revenue streams over the coming 5 years it will improve our ability to compete on the field. I suppose you are happy with that and give Levy due credit in 2025 even if you seem unwilling to give him credit for sustained improvement over the past 20 years.

Reddit also has a "selfaware wolves" page... you have litterally supplied the evidence that spending does not by itself bring success - Sunderland and Brighton are nowhere near our level over that time period and we shouldnt envy them for a second.

The lack of transfer spending is probably imposed by Levy because we have INVESTED in a stadium that will allow us to consistently spend more and compete on the pitch over the course of a decade. There is no reason to believe Levy will not do this.

You completely ignored the fact Pochettino had significant power in transfers too and so the blame should be spread more widely than on one man, who has also allowed us to see greater long term gains over 20 years than any club not bankrolled by a sugar daddy.
 

Oh Teddy Teddy

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2017
5,126
12,060
I agree with all of that except Ndombele being in the team, he just doesn’t deserve it. Dele, Gedson, winks are all ahead of him for that third midfield position if you ask me.

What on earth have any of those three done/shown to merit a place ahead of him? And I’m not arguing that he deserves a spot in the squad just that I fail to see what any of those three offer.
 

JayB

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2011
6,652
26,046
I think a Kane backup is essential because Kane has lost something through a run of injuries. He needs to be rested sometimes when fit. Wanyama did not clearly have issues from the off. That is something we know now but only became apparent after a period of time. Last summer we fixed the midfield issue with two of the best players we could buy. Now we probably need a DM and I hope we will buy that player.

I am going to take your response as an implicit admission that what we are doing off the pitch is good and as it increases revenue streams over the coming 5 years it will improve our ability to compete on the field. I suppose you are happy with that and give Levy due credit in 2025 even if you seem unwilling to give him credit for sustained improvement over the past 20 years.

Reddit also has a "selfaware wolves" page... you have litterally supplied the evidence that spending does not by itself bring success - Sunderland and Brighton are nowhere near our level over that time period and we shouldnt envy them for a second.

The lack of transfer spending is probably imposed by Levy because we have INVESTED in a stadium that will allow us to consistently spend more and compete on the pitch over the course of a decade. There is no reason to believe Levy will not do this.

You completely ignored the fact Pochettino had significant power in transfers too and so the blame should be spread more widely than on one man, who has also allowed us to see greater long term gains over 20 years than any club not bankrolled by a sugar daddy.
The point I'm making is that time and again, we have been painfully slow to react to obvious problems in the squad because doing so would have required investment. I'm making a second point that such investment is not the exclusive province of mega-rich clubs, and that indeed clubs with far fewer financial resources than we have routinely make investments in their playing squads that Levy does not.

It was well within our financial capabilities to replace Wanyama and Dembele at the time it became obvious that doing so was necessary. It was well within our financial capabilities to sign the deputy for Eriksen that Poch spent years chasing. It was well within our financial capabilities to bring in a suitable backup for Kane. We've not done any of that, or at best have done it but massively belatedly. The justification given is that Levy rejects the idea that spending is necessary. Well when you've got massive, gaping holes in the squad that the average fan can see clearly, sometimes a bit of spending is very well fucking called for.

Levy does deserve major credit for the training ground and stadium, but he bears and equal measure of blame for our current predicament on the pitch. We were close to kicking on and the necessary investments were ignored. Perhaps the blame is not his alone, but as the leader of the club he does shoulder a great deal of it.
 

leelee

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2004
4,364
2,095
I would be interested to know who people think is the man for the job. Poch was young and promising but had not won anything. There isn't many more who have won what Jose has won and has the knowledge of English football that he has. So, who's the man? People will debate if Poch was backed properly and I would agree, he wasn't. But neither is Jose. There isn't a manager put there who could win without proper backing. We're all doing our current manager a disservice. Fans should back him!

I think Jose hit the nail on the head saying our players lack desire. There are a few that do, and those few don't deserve to wear the shirt.
 

Spurs 1961

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
6,665
8,739
When we hired him I was in despair at so obvious a mis-match. As for the itk about the 'new' Mourinho I just laughed. He will add to his fortune whilst ours declines
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
The point I'm making is that time and again, we have been painfully slow to react to obvious problems in the squad because doing so would have required investment. I'm making a second point that such investment is not the exclusive province of mega-rich clubs, and that indeed clubs with far fewer financial resources than we have routinely make investments in their playing squads that Levy does not.

It was well within our financial capabilities to replace Wanyama and Dembele at the time it became obvious that doing so was necessary. It was well within our financial capabilities to sign the deputy for Eriksen that Poch spent years chasing. It was well within our financial capabilities to bring in a suitable backup for Kane. We've not done any of that, or at best have done it but massively belatedly. The justification given is that Levy rejects the idea that spending is necessary. Well when you've got massive, gaping holes in the squad that the average fan can see clearly, sometimes a bit of spending is very well fucking called for.

Levy does deserve major credit for the training ground and stadium, but he bears and equal measure of blame for our current predicament on the pitch. We were close to kicking on and the necessary investments were ignored. Perhaps the blame is not his alone, but as the leader of the club he does shoulder a great deal of it.
Levy clearly takes a long-term view. We know that because he has said he views himself as a temporary custodian of the club. And his actions align with someone looking to build long-term value.

Are his actions aligned with the goal of having as much long-term success as possible? Well if we compare ourselves in 2000 to 2010 to 2020 then the answer is a resounding YES. From each of those vantage points, look back to the past decade and ask where the most success on the pitch came. Is progress always linear? No. Have mistakes been made? Yes. But the long term trajectory under Levy has been up, up and up.

It seems you believe we could have made more investment over the past 5 years. The evidence you bring is that teams that are poorer / worse than us have done so. But you cannot claim that spending that money would have been in the best interests of the club unless you believe that this would have produced more long-term benefit to the club. The big difference between us and, well, every other club in the PL this decade is that we have built a world-class stadium that will dramatically increase our revenues. Did short-term sacrifices have to be made? That is completely plausible!

The conclusion is that even if we are seeing a short-term hiccough, Levy has (wrongly in my view) employed the most successful manager still active to steer the club whilst we wait for revenue to improve and lore investment to be made on the playing squad. That wont leave us better off in the short term but it will in the long term. Levy deserves our patience because so far he has always massively outperformed the market. Noone comes close since 2000 without a sugar daddy.
 

JayB

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2011
6,652
26,046
Levy clearly takes a long-term view. We know that because he has said he views himself as a temporary custodian of the club. And his actions align with someone looking to build long-term value.

Are his actions aligned with the goal of having as much long-term success as possible? Well if we compare ourselves in 2000 to 2010 to 2020 then the answer is a resounding YES. From each of those vantage points, look back to the past decade and ask where the most success on the pitch came. Is progress always linear? No. Have mistakes been made? Yes. But the long term trajectory under Levy has been up, up and up.

It seems you believe we could have made more investment over the past 5 years. The evidence you bring is that teams that are poorer / worse than us have done so. But you cannot claim that spending that money would have been in the best interests of the club unless you believe that this would have produced more long-term benefit to the club. The big difference between us and, well, every other club in the PL this decade is that we have built a world-class stadium that will dramatically increase our revenues. Did short-term sacrifices have to be made? That is completely plausible!

The conclusion is that even if we are seeing a short-term hiccough, Levy has (wrongly in my view) employed the most successful manager still active to steer the club whilst we wait for revenue to improve and lore investment to be made on the playing squad. That wont leave us better off in the short term but it will in the long term. Levy deserves our patience because so far he has always massively outperformed the market. Noone comes close since 2000 without a sugar daddy.
It’s simultaneously true that Levy deserves credit for the long-term development of the club and blame for where we find ourselves on the table right now. This has been a decline that has been years in the making. It is the result of a long list of missteps that I do not believe were necessitated by the stadium build.

Levy has always — over and over and over again — maintained that the stadium financing was a separate issue from the budget for the squad itself. Either he was lying or we had resources that we could have devoted to the playing staff, and chose not to.

Frenkie DeJong was publicly quoted as saying he could have joined us in 2018 but wanted to stay at Ajax. They were demanding a huge fee for him at that time, and we were willing to spend it. The inescapable conclusion is that we did in fact have money to spend during the stadium build. Now perhaps it was Poch’s stubbornness that explains why we didn’t get business done that summer, but the point I’m making here that the best evidence available suggests that your assertion that there was a binary choice between investing in the stadium and investing in the squad is flatly wrong.

Again, Levy may not be the only person who bears blame for our transfer failings, but he is the leader and the one ultimately responsible. Poch’s intransigence in 2018 represented the boiling over of long-simmering frustrations. He had wanted Mane and was given Sissoko. He had wanted Zaha and was given Njie and Nkoudou. He was sick of the failed bargain basement punts. In short, he was fed up with Levy’s failed dealings and wasn’t willing to accept it any longer.

We had resources to spend on the squad, we simply didn’t use them wisely (or, sometimes, at all). There’s been no coherent approach to the transfer market, no ability to identify talents of the requisite quality at the appropriate price point, and no ability to close deals. None of that can be put down to the stadium. That’s a total cop-out that the facts don’t support. Levy has fucked it in the transfer market for years now and the chickens have come home to roost.
 
Last edited:

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
It’s simultaneously true that Levy deserves credit for the long-term development of the club and blame for where we find ourselves on the table right now. This has been a decline that has been years in the making. It is the result of a long list of missteps that I do not believe were necessitated by the stadium build.

Levy has always — over and over and over again — maintained that the stadium financing was a separate issue from the budget for the squad itself. Either he was lying or we had resources that we could have devoted to the playing staff, and chose not to.

Frenkie DeJong was publicly quoted as saying he could have joined us in 2018 but wanted to stay at Ajax. They were demanding a huge fee for him at that time, and we were willing to spend it. The inescapable conclusion is that we did in fact have money to spend during the stadium build. Now perhaps it was Poch’s stubbornness that explains why we didn’t get business done that summer, but the point I’m making here that the best evidence available suggests that your assertion that there was a binary choice between investing in the stadium and investing in the squad is flatly wrong.

Again, Levy may not be the only person who bears blame for our transfer failings, but he is the leader and the one ultimately responsible. Poch’s intransigence in 2018 represented the boiling over of long-simmering frustrations. He had wanted Mane and was given Sissoko. He had wanted Zaha and was given Njie and Nkoudou. He was sick of the failed bargain basement punts. In short, he was fed up with Levy’s failed dealings and wasn’t willing to accept it any longer.

We had resources to spend on the squad, we simply didn’t use them wisely (or, actually, at all). There’s been no coherent approach to the transfer market, no ability to identify talents of the requisite quality at the appropriate price point, and no ability to close deals. None of that can be put down to the stadium. That’s a total cop-out that the facts don’t support. Levy has fucked it in the transfer market for years now and the chickens have come home to roost.
You do not have the knowledge to make judgements on what was necessary in the long-term interests of the club vis a vis the stadium build. That judgement is not built on evidence. Levy's judgement has been based on the best available evidence.

I would welcome a single source with a quote from Levy saying the stadium build would have no impact on transfers.

I would like to know how you know that Ajax were asking for a huge fee in 2018.

I would like to know how you know Poch wanted these individual players.

All of these things involve relying on rumour, hearsay and prejudice rather than facts and reasonable inferences. IF your worldview is based on speculation then it is no wonder you can find the space to be so confidently critical of someone whose verifiable track record is so strong.

You say that the evidence suggests there was not a binary choice between either spending on the stadium or spending on transfers. Well lets look at what happened once the stadium opened. We spent. Are there any other similar clubs whose spending was curtailed during a recent stadium build? Yes, Arsenal. Those are both verifiable facts. So already the verifiable evidence is consistent with the view the stadium impacted transfers. So far I have not seen a single verifiable fact to support the opposite.

Final point - the performance has not been good this past year but this is not some permanent state of affairs. We were in a CL final a year ago. The long term picture has always been good under Levy and it continues to look positive. The current slump has its roots in decisions made years ago (perhaps) but that logic then suggests our success 3 years from now comes from the excellent spending last summer.
 
Top