yido_number1
He'll always be magic
- Jun 8, 2004
- 8,692
- 16,895
One thing I'd for sure and that's we need to stop changing the managers so frequently and we might get where we need to be.
The Deadline Day ITK Discussion Thread - 1st September
- Thread starter Archibald&Crooks
- Start date
- Status
- May 8, 2005
- 41,857
- 25,920
- Admin
- #2,002
For sure, thankfully we've returned to the right sort of manager. Jose, Nuno, Conte were an aberration that we're hopefully beyond now.
RJR1949
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2013
- 933
- 5,279
What’s wrong about my post? I’d genuinely like to know if I’m wrong.
Another massive step in the right direction is that Levy green-lighted us buying before selling, despite an already bloated squad. That wouldn't have been a possibility a few years back either.
I can sympathize with people's frustration, and wanting things to move faster, but by now, no one should expect that under ENIC. And there seems to be some steps in the right direction, even from our often so stubborn chairman.
Nanky_1988
Well-Known Member
- May 19, 2012
- 769
- 1,187
The structure won’t matter if Levy is at the Helm! He’ll just meddle and overrule where he see’s fit instead of giving the DOF a budget and letting them get on with things.
jimbo
Cabbages
- Dec 22, 2003
- 8,067
- 7,540
I think there were two things we needed to do this window, the first was give Ange the tools he needs and the second was to get rid of as many of the surplus tools as possible.
On the first goal, we’ve done some of that work - the first choice players look to be great fits, but we have a very shallow depth of quality in key positions. I think that would be more acceptable if we’d done a better job with the second objective - as it would leave us in a better position to strengthen further in future windows. That we haven’t done that is the main disappointment for me - we have left ourselves with a lot to do still, and we’ve not been great in the past when it comes to that activity.
I still think we lack a proper club-wide strategy that would make recruitment much easier. Maybe the new DoF etc will solve that - we’ll have to wait and see.
On the first goal, we’ve done some of that work - the first choice players look to be great fits, but we have a very shallow depth of quality in key positions. I think that would be more acceptable if we’d done a better job with the second objective - as it would leave us in a better position to strengthen further in future windows. That we haven’t done that is the main disappointment for me - we have left ourselves with a lot to do still, and we’ve not been great in the past when it comes to that activity.
I still think we lack a proper club-wide strategy that would make recruitment much easier. Maybe the new DoF etc will solve that - we’ll have to wait and see.
GetSpurredOn
Well-Known Member
- Jun 18, 2006
- 5,022
- 8,922
You can’t use Porro & Kulusevski as new players/new salaries to suit your argument. They were here last year, Juventus(all year) and Sporting (January onwards) did not pay their salaries, we did.
GetSpurredOn
Well-Known Member
- Jun 18, 2006
- 5,022
- 8,922
We were linked with Mateu Alemany back in mid August. It was mentioned at the time he turned down Villa, and wouldn’t be available until September. So maybe ties in with an upcoming announcement..
Winner. Example, we ask £15-20m for Sanchez, you get 2-3 clubs to choose from, but ask £10-12m, maybe you get 7-8 clubs, which should improve the odds of finding somewhere he wants to go.
Short version, £15-20m is great, but in reality of that deal isn’t happening, asking £10-12m now is better than £0 next summer. Clubs from abroad can sign pre-agreements in January so he will actually probably be worthless in the January window.
Arsenal have done less business because they needed to do less business. It’s not entirely comparable in terms of amount of business required.
They have a manager who has already been there since late 2019/early 2020, so has already had a 6 window run up at getting his squad re-shaped. He is now, based on last season’s respective league finishing positions, at a point of fine tuning to step them up one position in the table. We are effectively 3 years and 6 positions behind them. That equates to a lot more business to close the gap
Agree. For the sake of, for arguments sake, selling Sanchez for £10m, Hojbjerg for £20m, Ndomeble for £10m, Dier for £10m, plus maybe Lloris on a free, would they have gathered more interest that would see them find acceptable moves. £50m cashed in, plus wages, plus residual Kane cash, then (again for arguments sake) drop £70m straight cash on the table for Chalobah and Gallagher, we suddenly have two HG players who actually fit Ange’s system very very well. A CB and CM would have taken the window from 5/10 to 7/10. This equally would have added more flexibility to the ‘need to sell before we buy scenario next window’. Without a Kane replacement it was never going to be much higher.
I don't disagree with your thinking here, but your examples doesn't correlate with reality.
We accepted a bid for Sanchez for the amount you suggest, and the only other offer that led to was the reported €8m from Rennes (as far as I'm aware). That's just too low for what is sadly our third choice CB?
We also accepted two low-ball offers for Ndombele, but still couldn't get anyone "worthy" enough to go for him. And we seemingly tried to, more or less, give Dier away as well, without succeeding.
Even when being ready to take much bigger hits than you are suggesting, we couldn't get rid of them.
Obviously, none of this is good or makes things easier for us, but maybe we can appreciate what a difficult task it actually is to move these players along. Especially, as I said, considering we can't even get rid for lower value than your suggested cut-prices.
cjsimba
Well-Known Member
- Dec 5, 2006
- 2,638
- 9,632
re Sanchez though surely ANY fee is better than the zero fee we will be getting next summer when his contract runs out.
The only reason that would make sense to not selling Sanchez would be if we couldn’t find a replacement who we felt was better than him and therefore decided that we’re better off with Sanchez for one more season and taking the financial hit on him leaving for free in 2024.
Now you could argue this is progress from DL in that he’s valuing the football side more than the balance sheet. But IMO the only reason we couldn’t find a good enough replacement was because no selling club wanted to sanction a sale with so little time to get a replacement in. And the reason there was no time was because DL took it to the final day of the window in the hope that someone new would come in for Sanchez at the last minute with a better offer.
So in summary, DL risked it all and ended up with nothing.
But not only that, he screwed us twice. We now get nothing for Sanchez PLUS we have an inferior centre back to what we could have had this season if DL had not been so hell bent on squeezing as much money out of the Sanchez sale as possible.
Definition of penny wise, pound foolish.
robotsonic
Well-Known Member
- Aug 20, 2013
- 2,420
- 11,302
Bet Dav stays for once last dance.
I would've agreed if we actually had someone in instead of Sanchez.
The fact that we failed to secure another CB is appalling, and I agree with you there, but that wasn't really the conversation I was engaging in.
JamieSpursCommunityUser
Well-Known Member
- Jan 27, 2011
- 1,901
- 10,044
DenverSpur
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2011
- 2,016
- 5,669
Very pleased with the incomings. Maddison was born to wear the Cockrel. VDV has pleasantly surprised me at how composed he is; like a Jan with pace. Vicario has looked solid and although he hasn't really been tested is only going to get better. For a freebie Solomon looks very useful on the left but not so much onn the right, two good assists today. Johnson is a bit pricey but that's the going rate for young HG players with PL experience. His pace will definitely be a plus for our attack.
Outgoings not so great. Losing Kane is a big loss but one we will get over. His exit was inevitable given the pigs ear the board have made of replacing Poch over the last 4 years.
Which brings us to both the deadwood and giving Postecogleou what he wanted. He was quite clear he wanted another CB and apparently he really wanted Gallagher and not only did he get neither but we only really started trying to get them on Transfer Deadline Day. This was totally unacceptable.
There's 2 arguments why we didn't get them:
1. the squad is bloated so we need to sell before we buy.
Sorry, I don't buy that argument. If you wait to sell a player before you buy his replacement he has less incentive to leave as he can always argue that he will stay and fight for his place. If, on the other hand, you buy his replacement first then that argument fails because you can simply say that here is no place to fight for any more as its been filled and you no longer have a squad place so best get your agent to find you a new club. Now that still doesn't mean you can force them to go to a club they don't want to but it does make it very clear that there is no future here any longer. If you buy early in the window they have more time to see the reality of their situation and more time to find as new club. I still also feel that given as this is a reccuring problem that the club should have at least one person whose sole job is to help facilitate the exit of players surplus to requirements.
2. We've already spent too much so we don't have the funds to buy more players.
We spent just over 227M on incomings - this includes Porro, Kulu, Phillips and Veliz - and raked in 110M from sales so on paper we had a net spend of 117M. but that's not strictly true. On this year's balance sheet it will show outgoings as approximately 46MGBPs( the fees amortized over 5 years) but because Kane and Winks were homegrown their fees are pure profit so the balance sheet will actually show us to have a profit of 64M. That would mean we could have spent over 300M on more players before we even broke even for the year. Even if you say but Leicester armortized Winks over 5 years so we only really got 2M this year and with Kane's fee we only got 70M up front that would still show a book profit of 26M. That would have allowed us to spend nearly 130M on a new CB and Gallagher. Of course it has to be said this does not include the carried over amortization of players previously bought - Romero and Richarlison between them, for example, would have 20M on the books for this year.
Anyway the point of my rambles is that, especially with the sale of Kane, there is no excuse why Levy did not begin negotiating for the second CB, and Gallagher that AP had requested, in the second week of August( Kane was sold on August 11th). Leaving it to the TDD is just playing Russian Roulette. He just cannot break the habit of always leaving his (new) manager a player or two short. Even after over 20 years he still doesn't see that in the long run it hinders them achieving the targets he desires - CL qualification. For such an obviously intelligent man and shrewd businessman its baffling that he continues to make the same mistakes year after year.
Finally the true value of this transfer window won't be seen until the end of the season. It has to be said though that even at this early date the results of earlier windows are bearing fruit when you see the performances of Udogie, Sarr and Bissouma. Whatever anyone may think of Paratici's dealings previous to arriving at Tottenham it can't be argued that he doesn't have a good eye for players.
Outgoings not so great. Losing Kane is a big loss but one we will get over. His exit was inevitable given the pigs ear the board have made of replacing Poch over the last 4 years.
Which brings us to both the deadwood and giving Postecogleou what he wanted. He was quite clear he wanted another CB and apparently he really wanted Gallagher and not only did he get neither but we only really started trying to get them on Transfer Deadline Day. This was totally unacceptable.
There's 2 arguments why we didn't get them:
1. the squad is bloated so we need to sell before we buy.
Sorry, I don't buy that argument. If you wait to sell a player before you buy his replacement he has less incentive to leave as he can always argue that he will stay and fight for his place. If, on the other hand, you buy his replacement first then that argument fails because you can simply say that here is no place to fight for any more as its been filled and you no longer have a squad place so best get your agent to find you a new club. Now that still doesn't mean you can force them to go to a club they don't want to but it does make it very clear that there is no future here any longer. If you buy early in the window they have more time to see the reality of their situation and more time to find as new club. I still also feel that given as this is a reccuring problem that the club should have at least one person whose sole job is to help facilitate the exit of players surplus to requirements.
2. We've already spent too much so we don't have the funds to buy more players.
We spent just over 227M on incomings - this includes Porro, Kulu, Phillips and Veliz - and raked in 110M from sales so on paper we had a net spend of 117M. but that's not strictly true. On this year's balance sheet it will show outgoings as approximately 46MGBPs( the fees amortized over 5 years) but because Kane and Winks were homegrown their fees are pure profit so the balance sheet will actually show us to have a profit of 64M. That would mean we could have spent over 300M on more players before we even broke even for the year. Even if you say but Leicester armortized Winks over 5 years so we only really got 2M this year and with Kane's fee we only got 70M up front that would still show a book profit of 26M. That would have allowed us to spend nearly 130M on a new CB and Gallagher. Of course it has to be said this does not include the carried over amortization of players previously bought - Romero and Richarlison between them, for example, would have 20M on the books for this year.
Anyway the point of my rambles is that, especially with the sale of Kane, there is no excuse why Levy did not begin negotiating for the second CB, and Gallagher that AP had requested, in the second week of August( Kane was sold on August 11th). Leaving it to the TDD is just playing Russian Roulette. He just cannot break the habit of always leaving his (new) manager a player or two short. Even after over 20 years he still doesn't see that in the long run it hinders them achieving the targets he desires - CL qualification. For such an obviously intelligent man and shrewd businessman its baffling that he continues to make the same mistakes year after year.
Finally the true value of this transfer window won't be seen until the end of the season. It has to be said though that even at this early date the results of earlier windows are bearing fruit when you see the performances of Udogie, Sarr and Bissouma. Whatever anyone may think of Paratici's dealings previous to arriving at Tottenham it can't be argued that he doesn't have a good eye for players.
Last edited:
rabbikeane
Well-Known Member
- Mar 29, 2005
- 6,951
- 12,787
The future is Dorrington and Phillips
Trent Crimm
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 3,943
- 10,508
Enter agent Dier,,,,,
yido_number1
He'll always be magic
- Jun 8, 2004
- 8,692
- 16,895
Would be money over points then.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked
