Yeah, sure, but if I'm really cheering on a bunch of "assets" dressed in ridiculously expensive, advertising-infested, merchandise on a wet Wednesday night, then I'm a fool. We fans have to believe we're supporting the best players in the best possible Spurs team (subject to budgetary limits). I could not possibly sing for "Juande Ramos' Blue and White Assets".
Jol/Comolli - Like we didn't know already...
- Thread starter cockjol
- Start date
Yeah, sure, but if I'm really cheering on a bunch of "assets" dressed in ridiculously expensive, advertising-infested, merchandise on a wet Wednesday night, then I'm a fool. We fans have to believe we're supporting the best players in the best possible Spurs team (subject to budgetary limits). I could not possibly sing for "Juande Ramos' Blue and White Assets".
- Jun 5, 2004
- 32,221
- 64,290
- Staff
- #62
Oh I agree 100% - I was just offerring the side of the argument that you were putting across re: our signing of players for fiscal rather than football reasons, with my tongue very much wedged in my cheek.
ShadyRay
Be Nice, I'm New
- Sep 10, 2005
- 5,738
- 9
a) Jol's version of the truth. The same as the Jol who claimed he wanted Elano, which is just a bare faced lie and he'd never mentioned the name Elano until SGE signed him. I take as many pinches of salt with quotes from Jol, Comolli or Levy as I do from an ITK.
b) It's immaterial anyway. I still think that badmouthing the club that just sacked you for being useless just shows a lack of class. It doesn't matter if the fans wanted you to do it, that doesn't change anything for me.
not according to the weekend papers ( guardian on saturday i think )... according to that we were offered first refusal on elano and petrov and levy turned them both down on wage and age grounds
The same article also said that Jol was forced by the board to make statements about defoe and his contract, but when defoe complained about ti being dragged into the media the board refused to back Jol
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 27,000
- 45,308
Then I'll make them, Manchester Utd are guilty of buying young players and not just established players,
Arsenal are guilty of buying young players not just established players,
Chelsea are guilty of buying anything and everything young or old but they've got silly money to spend, mind you Lampard and cole were bought as youngsters.
Liverpool won't win the league anyway.
When did the buying of good young players, become a serious accusation? I have got no problem with that policy at all, our difficulty is getting the very best established players who funnily enough don't yet see us as a worthwhile destination compared to Real, Barca, Milan, Man Utd and now even Chelsea or Liverpool, after that there's older players past their best and I think we've already tried that haven't we.
Thats all very well, but if you'd been sacked from your job amid claims which you felt were false, you'd try and get the facts as you saw them out in the open... if not only because you were pissed off at being blamed when there were two sides , but also in order to let prospective employers know that it wasn't entirely your fault. It may not be classy per se, but I don't think you can blame him for wanting to put his side across
The Apprentice
Charles Big Potatoes
- Mar 10, 2005
- 11,147
- 15,648
In Commolli we trust.
I suspected so - thanks to your fine use of the winking smiley.
Of course it's true that for a football club players are assets on the business' balance sheet. And I absolutely agree with the club's policy of signing top young talent - like Taarabt, Parrett, Mills, Berchiche. But the biggest asset, in a looser sense of the word, a club can have is success on the field. And that may on occasion mean buying 28-29-year-olds and, to continue with the accounting jargon, writing off their balance sheet value against success on the pitch.
Bale looks like he's ready now, but if he hadn't been, we already had Lee and BA-E able to step in. Kaboul has tremendous natural ability, but neither the Auxerre coaching staff nor BMJ and Hughton seem to have been able to teach him how to defend. (Hopefully, Ramos will succeed.) Anyway, the point is that some young players are ready earlier than expected (Lennon, Bale), others take longer than expected, and some never make it. So, buying Kaboul was also buying into the risk that he might take a season or two to be ready. We've been unlucky with injuries to Rocha and, sadly but rather inevitably, Ledley and Gardner, but there is definitely a business case for saying we should have signed another experienced CB, like Distin.
So, to bring it back to BMJ's comments, is he correct to state that we're buying players for business, rather than footballing, reasons?
Gilzeanking
Well-Known Member
- May 7, 2005
- 6,139
- 5,083
To Llamer who says Jol has been publically trashed in the last coupla months... I'd say that the public humiliation of the board and club at the hands of the media VASTLY outweighs this .
Anyway , as per usual , we're largely speculating on who does what at the club .
One things sure though is that Ramos holds all the power . WE need him WAY more than he needs US . If Commoli/Levy make it clear their priorities are only to buy appreciating , young players ...er assets , Ramos can bring the whole shithouse down and walk off to a CL team job . This would destroy Levy .
...So , hopefully Ramos's advisers have kept him informed of this general 'young players only' suspicion ( he's had shit with chairmen before) and from the off he holds a knife close to Levy's jugular and insists on players that will improve our results ....or else
Wha Hey...thousandth post Eek
....
Anyway , as per usual , we're largely speculating on who does what at the club .
One things sure though is that Ramos holds all the power . WE need him WAY more than he needs US . If Commoli/Levy make it clear their priorities are only to buy appreciating , young players ...er assets , Ramos can bring the whole shithouse down and walk off to a CL team job . This would destroy Levy .
...So , hopefully Ramos's advisers have kept him informed of this general 'young players only' suspicion ( he's had shit with chairmen before) and from the off he holds a knife close to Levy's jugular and insists on players that will improve our results ....or else
Wha Hey...thousandth post Eek
....
Bus-Conductor
SC Supporter
- Oct 19, 2004
- 39,837
- 50,713
Firstly, to those insisting that what Jol was saying was "fair game" this is bollocks and fucking sad frankly. What the club did for Jol was at least as beneficial for him as what he did for us. We plucked a manager from a 3rd rate dutch league
club at raised his profile imeasurably. We gave him probably the best contract he'll get in his life and then gave him a 5mil golden handshake. Would you all like Comoli or levy to come out and start going into detail about why they felt Jol was sacked and his dificeincies. So considering Jol has done rather well by the club it is a fucking classless thing to come out and say effectively "they are only in it to make a profit".
And the reason this is bollocks is that whilst the board realise that money has to made (they are a PLC) where possible and it is from a point of financial strength that football product can be strengthened and this in turn means more financial gain (and this is the most normal business model) the have not taken the quick cash route on several players. They could have easily sold Berbatov (especially after paying 16 mil for Bent) at a huge markup after one season and also Chimbonda by all accounts. Players like Keane, Defoe, Dawson, Lennon could all have been sold - some with considerable profit.
I understand that the board have to juggle long term success and the larger financial gain that could go with that, with short term success and smaller financial gain.
To say that the board are only inetrested in becoming a nursery when they handed him players like berbatov, Chimbonda, Zokora, Malbranque, Davids, Lee etc is sour fucking grapes.
Joey
I do understand the role the contract plays but that doesn't change my perspective. You are assuming that all players will retain their value over the first two years of a 4 year deal when the reality is that a much higher percentage don't. Look at Bent(16m), Jenas(8m) and Zokora(8m?). Would we have recouped our purchase price for any of those after one year into their contract ? I would guess (and it is very rough obviously) that no more than 15-20% of players bought within that scope (and only marginally higher percentage of all players) increase in value as players rarely improve dramatically once they hit that age bracket 24-28
Which is why I say that yes, our policy is an inherent value biased policy (as it should be) as much as it can be but it is over stating the case to say it is completely inherent value orientated.
As per my other post, I'm totally in favour of our buying top young talent. The issue is the lack of balance in our transfer policy. Real Madrid signed the young Dutch LB/LM Royston Drenthe (much admired by many here) over the summer, but they also signed the highly experienced Gabriel Heinze. That's balance.
Man Utd have been buying established, youngish players - Hargreaves, Carrick, Tevez - plus top young players - Nani and Anderson. That's also a balanced policy, and hopefully the one we'll have if we get CL status and purchasing power.
Once again, for me the issue is not ad hominem attacks on Jol and Comolli. It's trying to see whether Jol's comments are identifying a genuine issue with the club's transfer policy. And if they are, seeing if we can do anything about it.
Bus-Conductor said:
This is the counter-argument to Jol's claim that players were signed for business, rather than football, reasons.
Indeed, Danny Murphy not only had no inherent value, we couldn't even write him off as a depreciating financial asset...
One more point about Jol's comments. Given that we paid him £4-5 million, you'd have thought we'd have tried to get some sort of confidentiality clause inserted into the agreement. After all, BMJ is not Heather Mills McCartney. He's not gagging to spill his guts out on GMTV's sofa, especially if we offered him a bit more cash. Even Mourinho accepted a no-Premier League for a season clause in exchange for another wedge.
AnotherSpursFan
Well-Known Member
- Dec 4, 2006
- 1,811
- 1,792
I h8 Comolli
idlepete
Imperfect modal meaning extractor
- Oct 17, 2003
- 9,001
- 8
Ahhh, but you know I know that all truth is subjective. I still wanted to hear his version, much more than I give a shit about class.
I think badmouthing the club that sacked you for having a useless DoF after sticking to their official story for so long mitigates that to pretty large degree, anyway. He's still got more class than Levy and pals in my eyes.
At least now I know what to hope for, namely that Ramos turns out to be a stronger character than Jol who can impose himself on the other two when it comes to player acquisitions. He looks like he might be that man.
Rocksuperstar
Isn't this fun? Isn't fun the best thing to have?
- Jun 6, 2005
- 53,401
- 67,089
i luv nglsh lsns
joey55
Well-Known Member
- May 20, 2005
- 9,705
- 3,232
You need to forget this term "inherent value". I used it as Levy used in a quote back in January. We don't have a transfer policy that we call project "inherent value". So terms like being "inherent value" bias are meaningless. We have a financial model in which every single one of our transfer over the last 4 or so years fits into. It doesn't have a name. I'm not assuming a particular player will holds it's value over a two year period, but any model one creates will have to take into account that some transfer value's will rise and some will decrease. So it makes sesne to create a model based on players retaining their value, rather than increasing or decreasing. This model becomes more efficient with better the transfer market knowledge, hence the club are very keen not to rely purely on the opinion of a manager, but also to bring in transfer market experts. So Bent might have cost £16 million, but that was clearly the market price (we weren't the only one's after him). The experts (Comollli/Jol) obviously think he can get better and that is all the board can realistically do. The can only take advice from "experts" and build a model around it. So individual cases like Zokora, JJ and Bent are not relevant. It's the value of the squad as a whole. Is it worth more than what we paid for it? I don't know. Is it worth less? I don't know. It's probably worth about the same, in fact, to be fair, it probably has actually gone up in value. The key is, there are no examples in the squad that mean we will lose over £2.5 million a year on (unless they've been given a new contract, but that is all about choice) which in the past wouldn't have been the case.
