Early Transfer Business vs Late Transfer Business

[LexingtonSpurs]

Who said anything about 'concluding' business?

At this point, every other potential title challenger has brought in one or more players at this point except for Arsenal & Chelsea, who are seemingly on the brink of bringing players in. As for us, we've brought in nobody, and that doesn't look like changing any time soon.

A lot of business gets done towards the end because the prices start to drop. That doesn't mean it's unreasonable to conduct business early.


Wrong again. Pochettino has emphasized the importance of pre-season training on numerous occasions.

Isn't this a little misleading?

Man City, Man United, and Liverpool have brought in players

Spurs, Arsenal, and Chelsea have not.

50-50 split...

 

[Shadydan]

Money clubs bid early in the window to get their business done, as frustrating as it is there's going to be times where we'll get our business done late due to the nature of the transfer window. I'm sure everyone at the club would rather we conclude early but at the same time fans have to realise that we're not in a position to stupidly pay over the odds for players when they can be bought for cheap later on in the window.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Isn't this a little misleading?

Man City, Man United, and Liverpool have brought in players

Spurs, Arsenal, and Chelsea have not.

50-50 split...

In fairness, it looks like Arsenal are about to nab a player I think we all would have wanted and that Chelsea are about to splurge big time

I think the situation is a little worrying but I'm not pushing the panic button yet

 

[Pizza]

There are a lot of variables on what makes a successful signing - for example, VDV signed on deadline day and was one of our best signings. So it's not as simplistic as the earlier you make a signing, the more successful they will be.

So because of one player we signed 7 years and three managers ago, all the evidence laid out in the OP is null? I don't think so.

The fact is if Poch has specifically said he wants a player then we don't just move on to options B, C or D just because the selling club want to try and fuck us around.

Why? Instead of trying to pass what you say as 'fact', logically explain why it's better to wait for one target instead of considering others who are within reach in June-early July, and could part take in our pre-season.
We don't even know what the alternatives are.

Take Barkley for instance - Everton are apparently demanding £50m for him, which will inevitably go down by the end of the window. It would be silly just to move on to option B just because a few fans are getting twitchy. I'm sure Poch understands the transfer game, and even though he would prefer targets secured early, if he needs to wait until the end of the window then i'm sure he would rather do that than move on to options B, C or D.

I suppose you're the type who enjoys being condescending towards fellow supporters.
You can read Pochettino's mind?

 

[Pizza]

Isn't this a little misleading?

Man City, Man United, and Liverpool have brought in players

Spurs, Arsenal, and Chelsea have not.

50-50 split...

You're right, let's wait and see what happens.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

So because of one player we signed 7 years and three managers ago, all the evidence laid out in the OP is null? I don't think so.


Why? Instead of trying to pass what you say as 'fact', logically explain why it's better to wait for one target instead of considering others who are within reach in June-early July, and could part take in our pre-season.
We don't even know what the alternatives are.


I suppose you're the type who enjoys being condescending towards fellow supporters.
You can read Pochettino's mind?

There are clearly more examples of signings that are brought late in the window and still perform well. I can't be bothered to check as i'm in work but off the top of my head Marcos Alonso did alright, didn't he? And he was signed on deadline day if IIRC. The point is, it isn't an exact science.

If the manager makes a certain player his number 1 target for certain a position then it's the clubs job to sign the player by the end of the transfer window. That player has obviously been specifically targeted over other players as he fulfills all the criteria the manager has set out. If that player has these perfect qualities it seems foolish to not wait a few weeks until they could possibly be attainable, rather than go for an alternative who was deemed initially to be a second choice and therefore not totally fit the remit. It basically comes down to pursuing first choice or moving on to lesser options because you don't want to wait. I say 'lesser' options as there will be a reason they aren't primary choices to begin with.

We can only speculate but going on what JJ said recently the club and Poch is entirely comfortable with playing the long game if that's what a deal requires....

 

[Pizza]

There are clearly more examples of signings that are brought late in the window and still perform well. I can't be bothered to check

Genius.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

Genius.

Well done for taking my quote out of context.

 

[dontcallme]

What you don't understand is that we have a choice.

Of all the post-first game signings we've made, Son is the only one that's clearly improved us over the last 3 years.

There's nothing substandard about players like Toby and Wanyama.

Toby had a release clause and Wanyama I believe was in the last year of his contract. This makes the negotiating process much quicker.

Wimmer, Dier, Alli, Davies and Trippier were all cheap signings with little competition so again easier to conclude.

Expensive signings involve lots of negotiation and if multiple clubs are interested this also slows down the buying process.

There are also factors like waiting to see if a different deal comes off before signing a different player.

The last couple of seasons we've lamented how Liverpool got a lot of business done early. They did it by massively over paying and didn't really improve for the most part anyway.

 

[Pizza]

Toby had a release clause and Wanyama I believe was in the last year of his contract. This makes the negotiating process much quicker.

Wimmer, Dier, Alli, Davies and Trippier were all cheap signings with little competition so again easier to conclude.

Sounds good to me. More of the same please.

 

[Styopa]

How early is early? For example, Alderweireld, Davies, Dier and Janssen were all signed in either July or August. As was Vertonghen, Walker and Rose. On that basis we have another 5 or 6 weeks. Other key members of our squad were signed even later such as the aforementioned Son (28 Aug), Eriksen (30 Aug), Lamela (30 Aug) Demebele (29 Aug), and Lloris (31 Aug).

 

[Pizza]

How early is early? For example, Alderweireld, Davies, Dier and Janssen were all signed in either July or August. As was Vertonghen, Walker and Rose. On that basis we have another 5 or 6 weeks. Other key members of our squad were signed even later such as the aforementioned Son (28 Aug), Eriksen (30 Aug), Lamela (30 Aug) Demebele (29 Aug), and Lloris (31 Aug).

Being able to participate in most of the pre-season is what I had in mind.

Why are you bringing up Walker and Rose?

Also I never said it was impossible for late/deadline signings to work, just that earlier signings seem to have a better chance of being successful, especially in the first season.

 

[Styopa]

Being able to participate in most of the pre-season is what I had in mind.

Why are you bringing up Walker and Rose?

Also I never said it was impossible for late/deadline signings to work, just that earlier signings seem to have a better chance of being successful, especially in the first season.

Because they were also signings who are now important members of the first team squad, just as much as Alderweireld and Alli, for example.

I don't doubt your wider point that having signings in place by preseason can be advantageous. On the other hand, the final paragraph of your subject post suggests we are already losing pace with a top 4 rivals in getting our squad prepared for next season whereas I would argue it's just far too early to tell.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

One would be probably be paid by the club to go on here and post if one spends loads of time explaining why it's a great thing to sign players late in the window.

 

[Pizza]

Because they were also signings who are now important members of the first team squad, just as much as Alderweireld and Alli, for example.

We signed them as teenagers. They both had like 3-4 loan spells before being first team players. That's not even close to a good example.

 

[riggi]

 

[Styopa]

We signed them as teenagers. They both had like 3-4 loan spells before being first team players. That's not even close to a good example.

In the context of your assertion that: 'Any way you look at it, our hit-rate seems to be a lot better with early arrivals' I still believe they are valid examples. However, if you want to move the debate on to something like early arrivals make a bigger immediate impact than late arrivals, then perhaps not.

Point remains we have done a pretty decent job of assembling a squad made up of players signed in July or later and many signed in the closing days of the transfer window. In fact you could argue our relatively limited budget dictates when we are able to get the deals done and I would rather sign the 'right' player later (ie an Eirksen, a Lloris) than the 'wrong' player earlier - and we still have nearly 7 weeks until kick off.

 

[dontcallme]

While early signings have their benefits there is a lot to be said for the long term approach.

This long-term approach has seen us improve dramatically on the pitch while maintaining a close to zero net spend.

I hope Levy continues to see the bigger rather than thinking one individual signing will make all the difference.

 

[Pizza]

In the context of your assertion that: 'Any way you look at it, our hit-rate seems to be a lot better with early arrivals' I still believe they are valid examples. However, if you want to move the debate on to something like early arrivals make a bigger immediate impact than late arrivals, then perhaps not.

They're not even close to valid. Rose and Walker were signed as young prospects, not first team players. They had far more preparation than any player we've signed for the first team because they we intended to load them out from the start.

While early signings have their benefits there is a lot to be said for the long term approach.

This long-term approach has seen us improve dramatically on the pitch while maintaining a close to zero net spend.

I hope Levy continues to see the bigger rather than thinking one individual signing will make all the difference.

What long-term approach? What are you even talking about?

 

[dontcallme]

They're not even close to valid. Rose and Walker were signed as young prospects, not first team players. They had far more preparation than any player we've signed for the first team because they we intended to load them out from the start.


What long-term approach? What are you even talking about?

You haven't noticed the long-term approach implemented by Levy? Seriously?