The Deadline Day ITK Discussion Thread - 1st September

[midoNdefoe]

This ownership just does not care about success on the pitch.

Selling Kane made up for missing out on Europe and now he hopes Ange gets lucky.

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.

 

[keithtighe93]

We have a massive problem not being able to shift the unwanted players. Just because it's an ongoing problem doesn't mean it disappears.

We don't need to imagine not being able to sign a player before selling, because we and many other clubs have exactly the same problem every single window. Very few teams can just buy and not worry about the selling. Very very few.

We two clear first choice centre backs, but just because you don't like the others, doesn't mean they are not serviceable. Sanchez and Davies can absolutely do a job filling in, we have a problem if both Cuti and VDV are out for any length of time, but I still think we'd be a better defence than last season because of the midfield in front of them and the system they are playing in.

We were never signing a replacement for Harry Kane. Richarlison was clearly bought last summer as a longer term replacement. Richarlison last year, and Maddison this year are the replacements for Kane. Add to that a system that looks to create a team greater than the sum of it's parts, rather than a team looking to get the best out of Kane, that is how we are trying to replace him. We will see how successful that is. But there were no legitimate options as a replacement this window anyway, so I'm not sure exactly what you wanted or expected.

Ultimately to answer your final question, what is going on, is that you and many other fans are far too hung up on the words of ITKs, the media and your own toxic attitudes towards players.

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?

 

[alpha]

Paul O'Keefe casually said last night in the middle of a random conversation that we have a sporting director/DOF and we're just waiting an announcement FYI

Hopefully he is right. Be good to get a better structure going forward

I wonder whether the end up promoting Leonardo Gabbanini to DoF?

 

[talbot64]

On the plus side next summer we don’t have to sell first as Lloris, Forster, Dier, Sanchez, Perisic are all out of contract.

Any of those remaining will have been Anges choice and hopefully we have some European football so the options will be better to replace them

 

[thekneaf]

I wonder whether the end up promoting Leonardo Gabbanini to DoF?

If that was the case wouldn't they just announce it? If there's a hold up I'm assuming it's due to a notice period or non compete. Presumably we don't want another Munn embarrassment where we announce kind of but aren't able to have them start for ages

 

[keithtighe93]

On the plus side next summer we don’t have to sell first as Lloris, Forster, Dier, Sanchez, Perisic are all out of contract.

Any of those remaining will have been Anges choice and hopefully we have some European football so the options will be better to replace them

You can look at it in a positive light. But we also have to pay the wages for a year and get no fees.

Any Dier/Sanchez wages and fees combined would have sent a long way to helping get a decent 3rd CB in

 

[ExpatFan]

You really are in full denial mode aren’t you?

we got the Kane money up front, but regardless deals are spread out all the time both in and out.

keeping Lloris isn’t fine. We literally won’t be allowed to play him

by your definition there is no such thing as a gap in the squad - it’s not like we couldn’t field a team. We have positions where players clearly aren’t suitable or don’t really exist (CB for the former, CF for the latter).

And lastly, you pretending that fans are trying to foist anyone on Ange is frankly absurd. He wanted more players, especially a centre back. You can’t use him as a call to authority to say everything went fine

Glad you called out a notable BSODL..
Have just taken a look at his "neg reps" history and I'm now convinced he's either on Levy's payroll... or he's a family member!

 

[BENNO]

I'm pretty sure no one is particularly bothered by what i have to say but given that i am very much not an ENIC out type, i think it's fair that i should show my face in here when things are difficult.

I am disappointed that we didn't sign a 2nd CB because Ange definitely indicated he wanted another one. That is a failure to back the manager and that has to fall on Levy, i can't defend that and i don't want to defend that, i'm disappointed and annoyed (but really no more than that, it's a back up CB to cover for any injuries that may or may not occur). I understand that having Dier dig his heels in and stay made buying a replacement difficult when viewed from a business side of things, but i still think we could and should have bought someone else in for around the £20m mark even if Dier was still on the books.

However, i am pretty happy with the rest of the business, i've said a few times that i liked Brennan, so i'm glad we got him...i don't like the price, but it is what it is, i think he's a good player with potential and i can see him offering a lot of things Kulu doesn't (which might see Kulu being used elsewhere).

So yeah we didn't do quite enough (again) but we did do some good stuff and with a bit of luck the stuff we didn't do won't come back and haunt us - if we do get lucky with injuries then i'm confident it'll be a fun first half of the season.

I'll now go back to enjoying us play every weekend and i'll be cheering on every player that the manager decides to call upon. I'll be hoping we don't get any significant injuries to our CB's but i'm fairly relaxed about Sanchez playing a game or two if one injury fairly minor occurred.

At the moment i haven't seen any definitive squad lists, but i'd be very interested to know just how far along our U21 CB's are in their development because i'd be tempted to leave Dier out of the squad entirely and go with Sanchez and U21 players as cover (i'd also assume Davies could also be drafted in at CB if the shit really did hit the fan injury wise). That may be cutting off your nose to spite your face though, so depends what really went on behind the scenes with Dier imo - did he dig his heels in over a move because he was happy to pick up his salary and not be in a matchday squad for a year or did he genuinely back his ability and think that he could contribute and get game time because we were thin on CB cover and he was bound to be used at some point ?

 

[wrd]

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.

 

[Thenewcat]

We have a massive problem not being able to shift the unwanted players. Just because it's an ongoing problem doesn't mean it disappears.

We don't need to imagine not being able to sign a player before selling, because we and many other clubs have exactly the same problem every single window. Very few teams can just buy and not worry about the selling. Very very few.

We two clear first choice centre backs, but just because you don't like the others, doesn't mean they are not serviceable. Sanchez and Davies can absolutely do a job filling in, we have a problem if both Cuti and VDV are out for any length of time, but I still think we'd be a better defence than last season because of the midfield in front of them and the system they are playing in.

We were never signing a replacement for Harry Kane. Richarlison was clearly bought last summer as a longer term replacement. Richarlison last year, and Maddison this year are the replacements for Kane. Add to that a system that looks to create a team greater than the sum of it's parts, rather than a team looking to get the best out of Kane, that is how we are trying to replace him. We will see how successful that is. But there were no legitimate options as a replacement this window anyway, so I'm not sure exactly what you wanted or expected.

Ultimately to answer your final question, what is going on, is that you and many other fans are far too hung up on the words of ITKs, the media and your own toxic attitudes towards players.

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.

 

[matty74]

Ndomble is the only player us fans and the club in general should have a toxic attitude to

 

[$hoguN]

We don’t have gaps in the squad. Its just that some fans don’t like certain players who provide the cover.

The problem is that one of those people who doesn’t like those players is Ange. He was very clear he wanted an additional CB

 

[SpursSteveLincs]

Seriously, did you see the performance against Fulham and thought to yourself “I’m happy with the alternatives”?
There are massive gaps, big enough to drive a Traore through, and have been for many years.

No but how often has any manager at any club made 9 changes and seen a good performance. Far too many changes

 

[Led Revolver]

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.

Bang on.

 

[daryl hannah]

So just seen someone say Emerson was touted by Ange as a solution for RCB if Romero gets injured - is that right? It was before the season started from memory.

 

[Tucker]

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.

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.

 

[Dazzazzad]

Seriously, did you see the performance against Fulham and thought to yourself “I’m happy with the alternatives”?
There are massive gaps, big enough to drive a Traore through, and have been for many years.

How many games this year will we play 9 of the second string at once?

 

[the stick man]

So in summary.... (per transfermarkt)

Johnson - 55m€
Maddison - 43.6m€
VDV - 40m€
Porro - 40m€
Kulu - 30m€
Vicario - 20m€
Veliz - 15m€
Phillips - 2.3m€
Solomon - free
Arrivals : 248.6m€ (188.6m€ if you dont want to include Kulu & Porro)

Kane - 100m€
Winks - 11.6m€
Spence - 1.1m€ (loan fee)
Departures : 112.7m€

Netspend : approx 136m€ (or 86m€ without Kulu/Porro)

Pros : All incoming players fits the system & style of Ange's style of football
Cons: Except for Winks, did not sell 1 deadwood. Not even contract ripped up. Absolute failure on selling side. Numbers made up the one player most fans didnt want sold.

Overall - Really needed that new CB. But happy otherwise with squad revamp thats been done
6.5/10 window

Surely another con is selling the best player we had ina generation?

 

[FibreOpticJesus]

How many games this year will we play 9 of the second string at once?

Probably the fa cup 3rd round

 

[Dazzazzad]

Surely another con is selling the best player we had ina generation?

It's a con for this season but arguably a pro for the next 5 years versus the alternative of him walking for nothing potentially to a rival.