What's new

The Daily ITK Discussion Thread POST MORTEM

Trix

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2004
19,337
329,031
Chelsea don't need 5m
Chelsea don't want to strengthen us for sure
Really hard to get my head round that one as to why Chelsea would offer him to us.
They were either taking the piss or on a wind up.
Who said Chelsea offered him to us?
 

Cruyff

Active Member
Jan 28, 2005
575
358
I'm still confused why a mid-table team such as Leicester have quite a few players that would get into our squad (McGuire, Chilwell,Tielemans, Maddison) yet it has been suggested that we're not an attractive enough club for players to go to and players have turned us down. Does that say something about our recruitment dept?
 

Roynie

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2007
3,116
3,882
I don't like using the word but this transfer window was so 'Spursy' The chairman finally decides to open his wallet and the manager tells him not to bother. I'm not going to go too deep into it as I have already covered it before but the manager clearly has a plan of action and a lot of belief in what he already has. I just hope this doesn't blow up in his face because this window was totally 100% down to him.

Thanks for your info, as always, Trix it's much appreciated.

My interpretation of the situation with regard to the lack of signings, which could easily be wrong, is this. We have finished in the top 3 in each of the last 3 seasons so we are competitive … up to a point. In order to make that last step up we need 1 or 2 really top quality signings. As @Hercules said "But new stadium releases more immediate funds to add to the kitty. And with sponsorship being activated, will trigger those funds."

There is no point signing a player now for 10s of millions who is only marginally better than we already have. With the quality we currently have and with some good young players coming through from our youth system, it makes sense to wait just a few months more until the stadium opens so that those extra funds will be available to get the best players we can for the positions Poch has identified.

That would tally with the situation the clubs has been in for the last two TWs. I can't believe that Levy wouldn't want to make a real statement in terms of publicity, and 1 or 2 landmark signings to announce with the opening of the stadium would do that. I anticipate 1 or 2 top signings to coincide with the stadium opening.
 

Rob

The Boss
Admin
Jun 8, 2003
28,014
65,116
I'm still confused why a mid-table team such as Leicester have quite a few players that would get into our squad (McGuire, Chilwell,Tielemans, Maddison) yet it has been suggested that we're not an attractive enough club for players to go to and players have turned us down. Does that say something about our recruitment dept?

Those aren't "squad players" for Leicester, they're key starters.

You need to be comparing them to Kane, Alli, Son and not to Skipp, Davies and Wanyama.
 

ToDarrenIsToDo

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2017
1,665
6,291
Higuain would be more than slightly useful while Kane is injured. Pulisic, although not a position we need, isn't bad either.

Higuan is on £270k per week, Pulisic probably on silly money as well. Compared to what they've been given at Chelsea we can't compete so I struggle to understand why people see them as realistic signings we could have made.

Do you honestly think long term it would benefit the club of a player like Higuan came in and was on £70k per week more than Kane? It's just not practical and I wish people would understand that about their club at the moment
 
Last edited:

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Higuain would be more than slightly useful while Kane is injured. Pulisic, although not a position we need, isn't bad either.
Pulisic would be a minor upgrade on Lucas and Lamela, for that fee I’d want someone who’d walk into our first team, while Higuaín is being paid by Chelsea £250,000 per week, almost £100,000 more than the contact Kane just signed.
 

doctor stefan Freud

the tired tread of sad biology
Sep 2, 2013
15,170
72,169
Higuan is on £270k per week, Pulisic probably on silly money as well. Compared to what they've been given at Chelsea we can't compete so I struggle to understand why people see them as realistic signings Wembley could have made.

Do you honestly think long term it would benefit the club of a player like Higuan came in and was on £70k per week more than Kane? It's just not practical and I wish people would understand that about their club at the moment
They’re typical Chelsea signings: ageing striker who makes a quick impact before enivitably fading and an up and coming starlet who often does well for them
 

Johnny J

Not the Kiwi you need but the one you deserve
Aug 18, 2012
18,124
47,911
Pulisic would be a minor upgrade on Lucas and Lamela, for that fee I’d want someone who’d walk into our first team, while Higuaín is being paid by Chelsea £250,000 per week, almost £100,000 more than the contact Kane just signed.
We'll see how well Pulisic adapts to the PL, but he has wayyyy more upside and potential than Lucas and Lamela. There's a reason they bought him and not either of those two.
 

WiganSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
15,974
32,682
Those aren't "squad players" for Leicester, they're key starters.

You need to be comparing them to Kane, Alli, Son and not to Skipp, Davies and Wanyama.
They don't have to be better than Alli, Kane, Son to improve us, though. Just better than our squad players. The issue has never been with the first team, it's with the rest of the squad.

You should always look to improve the first team where you can, but if you can't then more often than not squad improvements can always be made.

And players like Maddison, Tielemans, Chilwell have enormous scope to improve. Maddison would have definitely slotted in nicely as a ready made Eriksen replacement now.
 

Rob

The Boss
Admin
Jun 8, 2003
28,014
65,116
They don't have to be better than Alli, Kane, Son to improve us, though. Just better than our squad players.

And players like Maddison, Tielemans, Chilwell have enormous scope to improve. Maddison would have definitely slotted in nicely as a ready made Eriksen replacement now.

You misunderstand. They signed for Leicester as they were guaranteed first team players. You think being backup to Kane or Alli is as attractive as playing week in, week out (for the former EPL champions)?
 

WiganSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
15,974
32,682
You misunderstand. They signed for Leicester as they were guaranteed first team players. You think being backup to Kane or Alli is as attractive as playing week in, week out (for the former EPL champions)?
I think all three of those players would have been involved heavily in the squad. Tielemans because our CM options are lacking in quality and or fitness, Chilwell because he's as good as Davies with scope to improve, and Maddison because it's obvious Eriksen is off and there will be chances for him in future.

We're surely a much bigger draw than Leicester, and don't forget, we play European football too. More possible minutes and more prestige.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
I think all three of those players would have been involved heavily in the squad. Tielemans because our CM options are lacking in quality and or fitness, Chilwell because he's as good as Davies with scope to improve, and Maddison because it's obvious Eriksen is off and there will be chances for him in future.

We're surely a much bigger draw than Leicester, and don't forget, we play European football too. More possible minutes and more prestige.

they still wouldn't play as much as they do for Leicester though. if fit Chillwell plays every game, with us it's every other. Tielamens and Maddison (even though he doesn't like us) would only be guaranteed to play domestic cups, and possibly if we have a weak op either side of a CL match
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
We'll see how well Pulisic adapts to the PL, but he has wayyyy more upside and potential than Lucas and Lamela. There's a reason they bought him and not either of those two.
Yes, that reason being that he’s the current ‘shiny new thing’ on the market and that’s what the mad Russian loves the most. For reference, see Kezman, Sidwell, Wright-Phillips, Pizarro, Morata and many others who Chelsea paid unjustifiably high transfer fees for.

Also, they have three established AMs to our five, and of those three Hazard looks to be off while Pedro and Willian are both over 30, ours are all 27 or under.

At his age Lamela and Lucas were rate equally highly if not moreso.

Pulisic would not have made enough difference to us to justify that outlay.
 

Johnny J

Not the Kiwi you need but the one you deserve
Aug 18, 2012
18,124
47,911
Yes, that reason being that he’s the current ‘shiny new thing’ on the market and that’s what the mad Russian loves the most. For reference, see Kezman, Sidwell, Wright-Phillips, Pizarro, Morata and many others who Chelsea paid unjustifiably high transfer fees for.

Also, they have three established AMs to our five, and of those three Hazard looks to be off while Pedro and Willian are both over 30, ours are all 27 or under.

At his age Lamela and Lucas were rate equally highly if not moreso.

Pulisic would not have made enough difference to us to justify that outlay.
It's a bit disingenuous to call him a "shiny new thing". He's one of the most promising players in world football, and they got him for what is, in this market, a reasonable fee. I'm not saying we should have signed him, but most people would have been delighted if we had. You've also cherry picked some players who didn't work out; how about Hazard or Lampard. Or were they shiny new toys too?

ITK was that we've been after Pulisic for a while. You might not think he'd make much of a difference, but it seems Poch disagreed.

There's a strange form of collective amnesia when when players like Pulisic are signed by other teams.
 
Last edited:

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
It's a bit disingenuous to call him a "shiny new thing". He's one of the most promising players in world football, and they got him for what is, in this market, a reasonable fee. I'm not saying we should have signed him, but most people would have been delighted if we had. You've also cherry picked some players who didn't work out; how about Hazard or Lampard. Or were they shiny new toys too?

There's a strange form of collective amnesia when when players like Pulisic are signed by other teams.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t have been happy to have signed him, I’m saying that the value he’d add to our squad in no way marries up to his price tag.

Lampard signed for Chelsea two years before Abramovich bought them so that’s pretty irrelevant here, while Hazard was the most sought after player in Europe the summer Chelsea bought him after a heroic season for Lille, Pulisic this season has started 5 matches. Every so slightly different ;)
 

Johnny J

Not the Kiwi you need but the one you deserve
Aug 18, 2012
18,124
47,911
I’m not saying I wouldn’t have been happy to have signed him, I’m saying that the value he’d add to our squad in no way marries up to his price tag.

Lampard signed for Chelsea two years before Abramovich bought them so that’s pretty irrelevant here, while Hazard was the most sought after player in Europe the summer Chelsea bought him after a heroic season for Lille, Pulisic this season has started 5 matches. Every so slightly different ;)
You're good at finding creative ways to deem irrelevant every valid point made against you, I'll give you that.
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
You're good at finding creative ways to deem irrelevant every valid point made against you, I'll give you that.
Nothing creative about it, it was actually quite an obvious thing to say. You were using Lampard as an example of me being disingenuous in saying Pulisic was Abramovich’s latest shiny new thing, I pointed out that involving Lampard in that discussion was irrelevant because he signed for Chelsea long before Abramovich was around. Not sure how that’s creative. I think it’s just called ‘putting thought into my post and properly constructing my argument’.
 
Top