Burnley tried a risky brand of football last season. Still finished 19th. Edited to be a bit more precise as I waffled a bit: The only way to improve an outcome is if you have a coach who is the right fit for a team (see Nuno at Forest, Slot at Pool, Iraola at Bournemouth for current examples) or to give a manager better players. The level of risk likely changes nothing. Safe or daring, if you don't have the quality it likely won't matter.
It is the injury crisis that is one of the main causes for our predicament. That's the only thing keeping Ange in place right now. But it is Anges' mismanagement of certain players that has exacerbated the injury crisis....
True. But I think in hindsight we went into this season without the tools to cope in four competitions. It was inevitable that something would snap very early on, and it happens to be that it was our league form. We took a squad that scraped 5th and got dumped out of both cups very early on, and barely added to it. If anything, we actually entered the season with a weaker squad than last year because whilst they weren't the future, the likes of Skipp, Hojbjerg, Lo Celso and Royal did have a lot of experience and were useful squad players for precisely the moments where you need to give someone a rest. I'm really not sure what the club's thinking was in the summer, nor what it's expectations were for the season. It is a bit strange that Levy hasn't pulled the trigger but part of me thinks (perhaps naively) that he knows deep down he hasn't done much at all to help his manager, by largely signing players who will be good in 2-3 years. Is the club willingly sacrificing the present for the future? I'm certainly mighty impressed by some of the young talent we've managed to pick up in relatively quick succession. Micky, Udogie, Archie, Lukas, Tony all look like potentially world class talent. Throw in Mikey Moore and there is a core there with an average age of 19. But we play a risky game. Sacrificing the present means that other teams will start circling, trying to entice those players to leave. It's a very fine balance. You've got a couple of seasons to convince those youngsters that this is where they should stay to develop. And if you can't demonstrate that, they're gone.
There are essentially three ways to spend the extra money the stadium brings in. One is to sign four or five experienced players for around £30m each year; the second is to buy two £75m players every year and the third is to do half of one of the first two and sign 5 or 6 of the best young players we can find. We are clearly now doing the third. This is indeed a risky strategy and will sometimes lead to poor league outcomes but it might well maximise success in the medium term. If one third of our current U23 players turn out to be as good as they currently appear we will have an excellent team in two or three years.
We haven't once recorded a net spend of £150m since moving to the new stadium. Closest was 23/24 but that was largely down to making Porro and Kulusevski's deals permanent.
Didn't say we have. We are bound to have some income from selling players so a gross spend of £150m a year is about what we should expect.
This is always what I call the “dreamers view”. “In 2-3 three years players x or y could be great”. That of course can be true, and it’s very possible that in Gray and Bergvall we could have two players that in 2-3 years time are amongst some of the best players in their positions in the league. However what posts like yours always seem to fail to take into account is who else will be great in 2-3 years to make the claim that the team will be “excellent”? In 2-3 years Son will have definitely declined and possibly even left. Romero will have almost certainly left. Kulusevski in the form he’s in this season will have likely left. There would be question marks on the future of van de Ven too if he ever gets fit (for either reason; we sell because he’s been great or we get rid because he’s a crock). For the team to be excellent in 2-3 years you also need players that are great now to help build that team for the future.
Last I checked, the stadium delivers circa £210m a year in revenue. If we are limited by covenants to only spending £150m of that, that should be a net spend, not a 'sell Harry Kane and make it a gross spend'. Which means tens of millions of stadium revenue is being siphoned off to fund other non-football related projects.
But Spurs have better players. His tactics either pay off spectacularly or fail dismally. With key players missing and others in key areas out of form, it’s been mainly the latter in recent times. He seems intransigent (like England cricket’s commitment to Bazball), when surely some pragmatism has been needed at times.
Transparency is needed. If the club simply state that for every X of new WHL revenue, Y is directed towards repayment of the new WHL debt etc, then at least you know (enough to ask why Y is what it is, can it be decreased to increase on-pitch CAPEX/OPEX without violating T+Cs etc) .
Just seen Postecoglou post-match comments and they do not ease my concerns, although I am just still in the 'Don't Sack' group... Certain players clearly didn't show up last night. 'Too passive' he calls it and I'm not disagreeing with that. I can even understand if he is deliberately publicly understating his disappointment. But if players cannot rock up for a NLD then frankly I'm not sure they are worth persisting with. Even if they didn't want to play for the coach, then they must at least TRY!. No doubt, my thoughts will raise the inevitable 'but look at our injury list' responses - but in general terms, the problems aren't with those players having to fill the boots of the missing first choicers. Last night the performances of starters Bissouma, Sarr, Son, Kulusevski, Porro and Dragusin was not good enough on any level. (And no, scoring with a massively deflected shot - his only in the game - does not exclude the captain from criticism). Kinskys performance was a mess as well, but I do wonder whether a week of Ange-ball training had actually caused some of his problems, as he appeared far more reluctant to clear the ball quickly than he had in his first 2 games. The subs made no real difference either: Johnson was totally anonymous, Maddison too lightweight and Richarlison isolated on his return, although he did try to make things happen. He's been over-playing players - some unnecessarily - which has compounded the issues. Last night alone for example, Ange started Porro, a poor defender even when not over-tired, when he had the chance to move Djed Spence to RB and bring in Reguilon at LB. He continues to trust in Bissouma, a player who has let the side down on numerous occasions, lacks basic discipline and regularly makes poor decisions. Yet he again leaves his (supposedly) key playmaker Maddison on the bench. The latter himself continues to underwhelm, but surely, he should be regarded as one of the first names on the teamsheet? If not, then WTF isn't he one of the first on the Get Rid list? There is no on-field leadership and Postecoglous own passivity on the touchline does nothing to translate into player motivation. The anomalies of a few, random successful outings (City, Liverpool etc) does not deflect from the dreadful run of relegation-level results over the past 14 months. There are some real individual positives out there in the exceptionally talented youngsters, most of Kulusevskis performances and the renaissance of the likes of Spence, but I'm far from convinced that the return of Romero, Vdv, Udogie and Bentancur will be enough to stop us dropping into a struggle for survival.
We have other costs and other income streams. We've been showing a loss for four successive years. The covenants don't limit spending they are based on EBITD which has to be more than M x the interest where M hasn't been revealed. Analysis suggests that the outturn M was a bit less than 3 which suggests the limit is about 2.5. All our recent accounts suggest we are spending the maximum allowed on players.
By complete coincidence, Lange is printing off a list of DMs who might be useful additions this window...
I really would love to be a fly on the wall in board conversation meetings. For starters, what does “full backing” mean in their words? Secondly, what is it about Postecoglou that is keeping their fingers off the trigger when higher calibre managers have been sacked for less? Thirdly, when’s the cheese room actually being built!?
Who has been sacked for less? The only manager who has been sacked for on field performance is Ramos. Most of the others have been sacked because they had various attitude problems
Jose sacked when in 7th and a cup final around the corner. Conte sacked when in 4th albeit Toon had two games in hand. Redknapp sacked when we finished 4th. We’ll likely be 14th by end of play today.
Nuno was also sacked when in 8th. Poch was also sacked when in 14th, so if Utd win today Ange will be in the same position in the table as Poch when he was sacked.
I have a lot of sympathy for Kinsky. He was clearly asked to play out from the back in a certain way, on his third start for the club and against one of the best pressing sides in the league, if not in Europe. The fact we spent so much time trying to weave a way out of our own half presented a good opportunity to do some tactical analysis. The conclusion I came to which is the same one I came to last May, is that this system cannot work effectively unless we either sign Rodri, or build a time machine and kidnap 2012-2016 Sergio Busquets (or if we're stretched for budget, 2016-2018 Moussa Dembele). We don't have a single midfielder who is press resistant. Bentancur is probably the closest thing due to his composure in possession, but he isn't strong enough in the challenge and is perpetually injured or suspended. The knock-on effect of this was obvious last night. Kinsky's instructions were to play out. He tended to look for Gray or Porro as they are better under pressure than Dragusin, while Spence was playing on his weaker foot. The next out-ball must be someone in midfield, but none of them were showing for it, and when they did - they lost it, case in point being Bissouma's contribution for the second goal. And so the pattern became: Kinsky-Gray-full back-kick it hopefully up the line, and Arsenal simply doubled up on our FBs with Lewis-Skelly and Timber, and the best we got out of most of these situations was a thrown-in deep inside our own half. We need more than one CM who can receive the ball facing his own goal under pressure, and either turn or force his way into space. None of them can do that.
My whole point is that they were not sacked for onfield performance so telling me their league positions is entirely irrelevant.
