The ousting of Daniel (COYS)

[skaz04nik]

I mentioned it already, we have no plan and we spend money without thinking. I agree with you completely, how it took us 3 and 3.5 years to replace Vertonghen and Eriksen is beyond me. Why did we do it? Because we have no plan or strategy or vision, not because we didn't spend. We did spend but we spent on random positions for no reason, there's a reason we have five left-backs and three right-backs at the club but only now do we have a LCB and a no.10 .

yeah.

anyway, we (still) need to bring in 2-3 more players (cb, forward or winger. so that’s 150+ mln more to spend, should we aim for top talent

i think levy’s core problem is that he tries to avoid as much risk as possible. thus delaying certain decisions which were to be made much earlier

further, at some point you have to go bold and take risk. either via supporting the new innovative manager (Arteta), or spending big to cover the weak position in the squad (pool bringing vvd etc)

 

[vegassd]

We should have recruited the best very best in football staff once that stadium was finished and gone from there. There was no reason we couldn't set up a scouting network like Brighton, no reason why we couldn't have spent some money on a feeder club to send talent that isn't ready, no reason that all that couldn't have been backed up with 2 or 3 first team signings per summer .

I broadly agree with what your saying, but I think the idea of "no reason XYZ" paints life in a way that is too simplistic.

For example, we praise Brighton's scouting network because we have seen the results - but who amongst us would be calling that 5 years ago? There is a fair amount of hindsight happening there. I agree with you that we should be investing in a modern scouting setup, but I don't think it's the kind of thing that happens overnight.

Your word "lurching" is exactly what I would use to describe the last few years though.

 

[Darth Vega]

again, you’ve made very valid points but that has nothing to do with my initial post.

You are arguing for our net spend over the last 5 years, I posted our current net spend for this window only. That’s what we’re supposed to be focusing on here. But to that point, had we had better luck with our outgoings, we would have a significantly lower net spend over the same amount of time. Our rivals, such as Chelsea and Arsenal, have had much higher value outgoings than us over the same period(last 5 years). But in essence this strengthens your argument against our net spend over that period so I digress, you’ve got me there.

You have to change the narrative over a longer period of time to have a valid argument but it doesn’t have anything to do with the original point I made though. Let’s focus on this Window’s net spend as that’s what I originally brought up to discuss.

I think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here. We’ve sold Kane this window, this impacts us on the pitch way more than it benefits us financially. Given that we’ve lost a huge chunk of goals and assists, you would expect our net spend to be higher than zero. (Taking Kulusevski and Porro out of the equation here) You simply have to go out and get players in to bolster the squad with such a huge loss. The outgoings can come later in the window.

I think your overarching assessment here is actually very good and I can’t argue with it. I would prefer we spend smarter, but that also means in modern terms we have to be WILLING to spend and therefore risk a bit more.

Just so you know, I would never feel disrespected by someone challenging my views in a concise manner like you have. It’s incredible to see such a well thought out perspective that somewhat contradicts mine. We both have very valid points here but we’ve lost it a bit in terms of the main subject matter. Either way, it’s an enjoyable debate for me so don’t worry about me feeling disrespected. If anything it shows you respect my point of view enough to make a proper argument and I can only appreciate that.

Apologies for the misunderstanding, that's my fault entirely so I hold my hands up. With regards to this window, I suppose my argument doesn't actually change all that much. I don't see net spend in isolation as any great indicator of success or ambition. Like I said in a previous post, I wouldn't be happier if Maddison was a £50m player and a bunch of the other players we've signed were more expensive too and we had a higher net spend.

Equally, the window isn't done yet. If we assume, based on reliable links, that we sign both Orban and Schuurs for £25m each taking us to a net spend of 50m (I'm excluding any additional sales we will inevitably make purely for the sake of argument) that doesn't make me feel any better or worse necessarily, I just want to know if who we're recruiting are good and whether Ange has approved them.

I would rather our net spend every year was as low as possible but the recruitment as good as possible. I take your earlier point completely that in the modern game there is a positive correlation between net spend and success but the very reason I brought up our net spend over the past five years is to show that that hasn't been the case for us for reasons beyond the spending and that's ultimately where my concern lies; I think that's where we differ perhaps, your concern is on net spend and mine is on the overall recruitment with the financials a lesser concern.

Obviously losing Kane is a unique situation across this five-year period but if we end the window with a positive net spend of circa 50m - as per my hypothetical signings before - with the signings of:

• Vicario
• Van de ven
• Solomon
• Maddison
• Veliz
• Orban
• Schuurs

...then I'd be ok with that (as long as Ange is) no matter what the final number is. Personally I think we desperately need to sign a RW on top of this (again, not particularly fussed what the final figure is here so long as they're good and Ange is happy).

If we do sign a new right-winger on top of this then the net spend could end up being at least £80m+, likely higher, but we'd have signed eight players, all approved by the coach, the majority of whom can make an immediate impact (excluding Veliz and I'm not even bothering to mention Phillips).

On your point of not needing to sell, I'm not sure this is realistic. The risk of not selling before we buy is that we end up still with a squad of 35-40 players. We saw Potter last year struggle at Chelsea and partly because the squad was too big to coach. How do you deal with literally half the squad knocking on your door complaining about game time? How do you set up a training session with so many players? Even an 11 vs 11 would leave out nearly half the squad - it simply isn't feasible.

We can assume that we will sell a bunch of players in the end of course but no other club really operates this way. Arsenal at the moment are still struggling to shift Pepe (and others) which is preventing them from bringing in cover for Saka, just to give one example. Unfortunately the cost of our half-assed, random recruitment is so-so players on high wages that nobody wants to take on (for which Levy is solely to blame).

To be clear, I'm as Levy out as anybody here and I have been as far back as the summer window of 2010, swiftly followed by January 2012 and then the Stratford debacle (which really should have been the end of him to be entirely honest but we have an incredibly placid fanbase all things considered, but I digress). I want him as far away from footballing decisions as is humanly possible, I don't think he as any ambitions beyond making sure we continue to qualify for the Champions League, and he as repeatedly made the same mistakes over his entire tenure irrespective of the finances.

 

[Albertbarich]

I broadly agree with what your saying, but I think the idea of "no reason XYZ" paints life in a way that is too simplistic.

For example, we praise Brighton's scouting network because we have seen the results - but who amongst us would be calling that 5 years ago? There is a fair amount of hindsight happening there. I agree with you that we should be investing in a modern scouting setup, but I don't think it's the kind of thing that happens overnight.

Your word "lurching" is exactly what I would use to describe the last few years though.

The point about Brighton isn't to copy them though it's about they have clearly planned , been strategic and smart about their business, 3 things I don't think we are.

There is no plan beyond save money where we can and react. That's why we can't sell players, that's why everyone is pissed off and that's why barely anyone thinks Levy is upto the job.

Even this summer the supposed one to change he still has no DOF, Scott munn still hasn't officially started, they still can't sell anyone and they still have the communication skills of a caveman.

Nothing changed except they have brought in a very good and charming manager who will cover for some of their shortcomings by being good at his job and a shield.

 

[tony0379]

What the fuck have I just read

Ateast ****ball left

 

[alfie103]

You are missing the point by a considerable distance.

What is the point I am missing?

 

[WiganSpur]

The worst part for me is he has most definitely won. We are here HOPING we can maybe spend another £60-75m on a few more signings and in the grand scheme of things, that is such a minor outlay for a club our size, and considering the Kane money. But here we are sat just hoping that might be possible. It’s because we are so disillusioned with ENIC and Levy, and we know they won’t push the boat out to really try and right the ship (nautical puns!). The problem is we hope for the bare minimum, and we don’t even get that most of the time.

He is a master at eroding fan expectations. Won't be long till all anyone's expecting is a zero net spend again which was the case before the stadium build.

If we spend another £100m net for the rest of this window (which let's be honest is not going to happen), that takes us to an average net spend per season across the last 5 seasons (since stadium move) to £100m.

The mitigating factors to that can be the following:

- Your hit rate is so high that you don't need a high net spend (see Brighton)
- You have a conveyor belt of talent in the academy and development squads ready to slot in or sell at the right time
- You bring in a lot of free transfers

Over the last 5 years, Levy has pretty much failed on all of those counts. With that in mind, a £100m spend per season is underinvestment for a club of our size plain and simple. And that's with a highly optimistic end to this window.

On the other end of the spectrum, if we were to shift £25m worth of deadwood and end the window there, that average figure goes down to £75m. So it's fair to say we'll end up around the £80-90m mark.

When you combine the facts with the commonly shared consensus on here that the squad is left short season after season in key positions then the case against Levy is clear.

 

[only1waddle]

I remember people saying at the time it was optional but you're probably right

Either way it feels like 40 million very much in the balance of being wasted.

I'm guessing Paratici sold it as bringing in a 343/352 coach after Conte, between his legal trouble and the internal review resulting in Munn the club decided on a different direction, it just reflects everything that has happened since the CL final.
If Porro goes next summer then so be it., the recruitment wake up call has already hit the club this summer.

 

[G Ron]

They sacrificed their league position to focus on winning silverware as they didn’t have the squad depth for both.

Now, they’re in european competition and have european silverware to their name. We have no european football and no silverware for 15 years. Their talismanic captain left after hoisting a major european trophy. Our generational striker did not.

That is success by definition.

Do me a favour - that competition is utter wank and half our fans were happy to avoid qualifying for it (I have no interest in it and afford it zero credence).

Major European trophy where you play a bunch of teams nobody has ever heard of before. We joke about the Audi cup but we beat far better teams winning that versus anyone the spammers came up against.

Had we won that comp we’d have been laughed out of town and I’ve certainly laughed at all the spammers crowing about it.

They certainly didn’t sacrifice their league campaign for that trophy. It just happens all their opponents in that are the equivalent of bottom half prem / championship teams and those are the only teams they are capable of beating. They’ll likely finish bottom half and be in a relegation dog fight again this season - I wouldn’t swap our position for that third rate trophy at all. We were in a CL Final four years ago - they’ll never be good enough to qualify for that competition.

 

[-Afri-Coy-]

Apologies for the misunderstanding, that's my fault entirely so I hold my hands up. With regards to this window, I suppose my argument doesn't actually change all that much. I don't see net spend in isolation as any great indicator of success or ambition. Like I said in a previous post, I wouldn't be happier if Maddison was a £50m player and a bunch of the other players we've signed were more expensive too and we had a higher net spend.

Equally, the window isn't done yet. If we assume, based on reliable links, that we sign both Orban and Schuurs for £25m each taking us to a net spend of 50m (I'm excluding any additional sales we will inevitably make purely for the sake of argument) that doesn't make me feel any better or worse necessarily, I just want to know if who we're recruiting are good and whether Ange has approved them.

I would rather our net spend every year was as low as possible but the recruitment as good as possible. I take your earlier point completely that in the modern game there is a positive correlation between net spend and success but the very reason I brought up our net spend over the past five years is to show that that hasn't been the case for us for reasons beyond the spending and that's ultimately where my concern lies; I think that's where we differ perhaps, your concern is on net spend and mine is on the overall recruitment with the financials a lesser concern.

Obviously losing Kane is a unique situation across this five-year period but if we end the window with a positive net spend of circa 50m - as per my hypothetical signings before - with the signings of:

• Vicario
• Van de ven
• Solomon
• Maddison
• Veliz
• Orban
• Schuurs

...then I'd be ok with that (as long as Ange is) no matter what the final number is. Personally I think we desperately need to sign a RW on top of this (again, not particularly fussed what the final figure is here so long as they're good and Ange is happy).

If we do sign a new right-winger on top of this then the net spend could end up being at least £80m+, likely higher, but we'd have signed eight players, all approved by the coach, the majority of whom can make an immediate impact (excluding Veliz and I'm not even bothering to mention Phillips).

On your point of not needing to sell, I'm not sure this is realistic. The risk of not selling before we buy is that we end up still with a squad of 35-40 players. We saw Potter last year struggle at Chelsea and partly because the squad was too big to coach. How do you deal with literally half the squad knocking on your door complaining about game time? How do you set up a training session with so many players? Even an 11 vs 11 would leave out nearly half the squad - it simply isn't feasible.

We can assume that we will sell a bunch of players in the end of course but no other club really operates this way. Arsenal at the moment are still struggling to shift Pepe (and others) which is preventing them from bringing in cover for Saka, just to give one example. Unfortunately the cost of our half-assed, random recruitment is so-so players on high wages that nobody wants to take on (for which Levy is solely to blame).

To be clear, I'm as Levy out as anybody here and I have been as far back as the summer window of 2010, swiftly followed by January 2012 and then the Stratford debacle (which really should have been the end of him to be entirely honest but we have an incredibly placid fanbase all things considered, but I digress). I want him as far away from footballing decisions as is humanly possible, I don't think he as any ambitions beyond making sure we continue to qualify for the Champions League, and he as repeatedly made the same mistakes over his entire tenure irrespective of the finances.

I have focused in on net spend as this is pretty much solely controlled by Levy, and this has probably made it seem like this is what I care about most. I don't, but in the context of Levy's incompetence it's important to keep track of. You've opened up a better, broader perspective for me.

Had we known the entire window that Kane would be leaving (according to ITK we knew) then I can't seem to fathom how or why we've waited so long and are still waiting to complete our business. Up until a few minutes ago, I didn't have a reason for this. WLB has given me a better outlook with a response in the Laporte thread which changes my perspective massively.

I was wrong to say we don't need to wait for outgoings, I shouldn't have overlooked that aspect. We do need to shift a bunch of deadwood, not only to trim the squad but to reduce the wage bill which ultimately affects the quality of player we can sign before the window closes. This could be the difference between signing Laporte or signing Schuurs. I know which player I'd prefer. But again, outgoings are somewhat controlled by Levy and hopefully he isn't pricing us out of a chance to get rid of certain players.

 

[G Ron]

I don't see why it is odd. Should we cast our UEFA cup and cup winners' cup successes as meaningless?

No because we had to win a domestic cup to qualify for the cup winners cup and a 7th placed finish didn’t mean you qualified for the UEFA cup back then. It’s comparing apples and oranges.
It’s on par with the Intertoto cup which we once fielded a team of reserves for when we qualified for it. Oh and an on loan Alan Pardew. That’s a far better comparison.

 

[vegassd]

No metric is useless. If used in context (not cherry picking) then it's a perfectly valid metric to use to strengthen ones argument.

If you feel it's a useless metric then don't get involved in the discussion when it's being used within a specific context.

And ofcourse I posted it to support my argument, I then gave reasons and a better breakdown of why I brought it up in the same post you quoted.

So the problem here is the context. You have set the context as the past 8 weeks because it portrays a particular story. Like I said previously, if you had posted the numbers 7 days ago they wouldn't have told the same story. That is why the metric is so useless in my opinion, because it is so easy to manipulate to tell a story.

The points you made in your second post are then based on that limited/skewed context. It means that whilst I actually agree with your overall notion (I think), by choosing such a biased set of data it actually weakens your arguments in my view. To try and demonstrate that:


1. Our supposed direct rivals spend tons of money on flops
Surely we don't want to buy flops at all? If anything, we could say that a high net spend is partly symptomatic of poor recruitment.

2. Why do we have to have such a low net spend? We literally don’t need to keep it that low.
As Darth Vega pointed out, when you look at our spending over the past few years it isn't that low. And if we look at our spend at the end of the window, there's a good chance it won't be this low. It is only this low in that narrow time frame.

3. As much as everyone hates to admit it, modern football requires spending to be successful. If we want to finally win things, we need to be able to compete financially somewhat. Which we can, but our board refuses to do so.
I agree. This is essentially the same as above in terms of the context.

4. Why don’t we spend a chunk on a proper scouting network that’s at the same level as Dortmund or Leipzig, or Brighton?
Totally agree again, although this would not appear on the net spend figures you posted.

5. We simply cannot compete with the teams around us if we are only winning to spend the same as relegation fodder teams.
Agree again, but again our spending is only the same as relegation teams if you cherry pick the time frame.


What I think we should be looking at is the idea that all the club's profits are spent on the playing squad. Maybe not down to the penny every single year, but that over a period of time we are putting all that money back into the club. Fuck what Chelsea or Arsenal or whoever are "net spending" at any given moment - let's hold Levy to account for our own accounts.

Picking a short time frame in order to compare our transfer net spend against Burnley's gets us absolutely nowhere. In fact, I personally think that this fascination with scoring cheap points through net spend comparisons is a part of the reason that fans voices aren't taken seriously by clubs.

I really don't want to sound like I'm attacking you, and whilst I think net spend is useless I don't think your arguments are useless at all. But I think that numbers posted like that are only there for one thing... to generate comments/shares/likes on social media by riling people up. It's such a limited perspective I think it tends to drown out the more realistic criticisms of the club.

 

[Darth Vega]

I have focused in on net spend as this is pretty much solely controlled by Levy, and this has probably made it seem like this is what I care about most. I don't, but in the context of Levy's incompetence it's important to keep track of. You've opened up a better, broader perspective for me.

Had we known the entire window that Kane would be leaving (according to ITK we knew) then I can't seem to fathom how or why we've waited so long and are still waiting to complete our business. Up until a few minutes ago, I didn't have a reason for this. WLB has given me a better outlook with a response in the Laporte thread which changes my perspective massively.

I was wrong to say we don't need to wait for outgoings, I shouldn't have overlooked that aspect. We do need to shift a bunch of deadwood, not only to trim the squad but to reduce the wage bill which ultimately affects the quality of player we can sign before the window closes. This could be the difference between signing Laporte or signing Schuurs. I know which player I'd prefer. But again, outgoings are somewhat controlled by Levy and hopefully he isn't pricing us out of a chance to get rid of certain players.

That's all totally fair. Appreciate the good and well-mannered chat

 

[-Afri-Coy-]

So the problem here is the context. You have set the context as the past 8 weeks because it portrays a particular story. Like I said previously, if you had posted the numbers 7 days ago they wouldn't have told the same story. That is why the metric is so useless in my opinion, because it is so easy to manipulate to tell a story.

The points you made in your second post are then based on that limited/skewed context. It means that whilst I actually agree with your overall notion (I think), by choosing such a biased set of data it actually weakens your arguments in my view. To try and demonstrate that:


1. Our supposed direct rivals spend tons of money on flops
Surely we don't want to buy flops at all? If anything, we could say that a high net spend is partly symptomatic of poor recruitment.

2. Why do we have to have such a low net spend? We literally don’t need to keep it that low.
As Darth Vega pointed out, when you look at our spending over the past few years it isn't that low. And if we look at our spend at the end of the window, there's a good chance it won't be this low. It is only this low in that narrow time frame.

3. As much as everyone hates to admit it, modern football requires spending to be successful. If we want to finally win things, we need to be able to compete financially somewhat. Which we can, but our board refuses to do so.
I agree. This is essentially the same as above in terms of the context.

4. Why don’t we spend a chunk on a proper scouting network that’s at the same level as Dortmund or Leipzig, or Brighton?
Totally agree again, although this would not appear on the net spend figures you posted.

5. We simply cannot compete with the teams around us if we are only winning to spend the same as relegation fodder teams.
Agree again, but again our spending is only the same as relegation teams if you cherry pick the time frame.


What I think we should be looking at is the idea that all the club's profits are spent on the playing squad. Maybe not down to the penny every single year, but that over a period of time we are putting all that money back into the club. Fuck what Chelsea or Arsenal or whoever are "net spending" at any given moment - let's hold Levy to account for our own accounts.

Picking a short time frame in order to compare our transfer net spend against Burnley's gets us absolutely nowhere. In fact, I personally think that this fascination with scoring cheap points through net spend comparisons is a part of the reason that fans voices aren't taken seriously by clubs.

I really don't want to sound like I'm attacking you, and whilst I think net spend is useless I don't think your arguments are useless at all. But I think that numbers posted like that are only there for one thing... to generate comments/shares/likes on social media by riling people up. It's such a limited perspective I think it tends to drown out the more realistic criticisms of the club.

First off, I want to apologise if my response came off a bit snide, I thought you hadn't taken the entirety of my posts into account which you have so forgive my ignorance.

As I said in a previous response, it wasn't my intention to bring net spend into it as the main arguing point, it was meant to be supportive and this ended up becoming the subject of discussion. In essence, the twitter post was cherry picking and I used it to support a previous post about Levy's incompetence as this is something he has almost complete control over.

As it's been pointed out in another thread, our main issue is outgoings. We have been dismal at getting any real value for our outgoings and more so struggled to move players on at all which inevitably leaves us in a bit of a predicament.

 

[WiganSpur]

I agree the net spend isn’t really a great marker of ENIC at the moment, they have spent more since the stadium, that is clear, but this does ‘t factor so has everyone, the market has become seriously inflated.

It’s what’s actually keeping the likes City and somewhat even Chelsea’s net spend down (comparatively) because yes they continue to pay big fees for the best, but they are also cashing in on their failures or players the manager wants to move on, much easier to do as they are often successful and established stars.

Our problem since the stadium isn’t how much we’re spending, it’s our failure to offload, and that largely comes from constantly changing the manager never knowing what players the next wants or needs and Levy being hesitant to take losses on the dross he’s gambled on as he doesn’t dine at the top table so these aren’t established successful stars he can cash in on.

I’d be interested to see gross spend the last 5 years as I believe our net spend is high mainly due to the inflated market and our inability to offload players the manager doesn’t want…

I think an element of this is Levy's tough negotiating tactics though. It works for top tier players but not for those in lower brackets where there are plenty of alternatives available to clubs. Chelsea are on the whole very good at selling, even if you exclude the dodgy Saudi stuff.

Case in point this season, with the fees they got for Havertz, Mount, Pulisic and Loftus Cheek. Last season they got £12m each for Jorginho and Emerson. Again decent business.

 

[wrd]

If there's something I've learnt recently it's that; reason, rational and meaning can all be weaved in whichever way we want to make any point we see fit in any area of life and unfortunately it's a great way that we use to all avoid facing the reality of what a situation is;

The reality is simple, the club is not competing where we want it to, the club has proven it is capable of finding ways to compete at the top and we were one game away from getting to the other side at least once. We made decisions that didn't consolidate that ability to compete at the top. We have fallen behind our competitors for various reasons.

Now surely we all agree, we want to be a club that competes at the top right? Don't bother finding reasons why we are not, just actually look at it in simple terms, we all want to compete at the top.

Now we can point to what Chelsea are doing, what City have done, what Newcastle are about to do and say it's not fair and lament and complain that somebody should do something, the reality is they won't, the reality is they are the obstacles we have to overcome and before the appointment of Ange, our board are consistently getting further and further away and not finding solutions.

If they can't find solutions, let's be clear, it doesn't matter if they spend 1 Billion or 1 pound, all that really matters is that we are competing, so their job is to find solutions and if they can't do it, then they need to leave because all that matters is the reality which as I said, is that we're not competing. If they don't feel they can and they feel the odds are stacked against them, leave and let somebody who believes they can find a way to compete have a go at it.

Let's stop explaining away the situation, stop rationalising it, stop excusing it, let's just keep it simple and say if they aren't going to show progress towards competing, then winning, then consistently winning, then leave.

 

[sidford]

WLB saying we need to sell players before bringing any more in. We have sold arguably our best ever player but now can't sign anyone because we have a bloated squad. Levy really is the lad that keeps on giving isn't he

 

[WiganSpur]

WLB saying we need to sell players before bringing any more in. We have sold arguably our best ever player but now can't sign anyone because we have a bloated squad. Levy really is the lad that keeps on giving isn't he

Levy should have been proactive and lined up deals for all those players that were being assessed by Ange, then left it to him for the final say. Seems like he's just been asleep the whole time tbh.

 

[Matrix]

WLB saying we need to sell players before bringing any more in. We have sold arguably our best ever player but now can't sign anyone because we have a bloated squad. Levy really is the lad that keeps on giving isn't he

Ironically it’s Coys Daniels fault why we have a bloated squad and players who don’t fit a team build. It’s like going out and buying ingredients for a curry and then walking past the bisto tin, then buying it as a substitute for curry power cause it was 2 quid cheaper.
His and his cronies mismanagement on, on field matters got us in this mess.

Dont chase Skinrar for weeks then go “oh hes too expensive, let’s get Rodon“, an then expect to make money on a player you NEVER should have bought.. ultimately costing you in the long term.

Just says everything about our recruitment when offers to buy our squad players are a myth.

Also the tosser goes on holiday at the business end of the transfer window.

 

[TheVoiceofReason]

Seriously, what’s the fastest way we can get this bald bollock out of our club.

I really want Ange to feel the love but this is bigger than him, the Levy out chants need to be louder and longer than ever on Sat.