Of course this happens in an idea world, but I guess this is where a cost/benefit analysis comes into play where you have: 1) waiting to get #1 target until the end of the window, hoping to get the best player for a reduced price due to negotiation/brinksmanship, at the risk of not getting him at all, or him not getting the full preseason vs. 2) getting an inferior player, probably for less (but probably not much less if you still want him to be any good) and him getting as close to a full preseason as possible Over the years we seem to lean very heavily towards option 1, though there have definitely been times like last summer where we just needed numbers for certain positions where option 2 would have been more prudent.
But if the rumours are right Betis agreed our price twice and then changed their minds. Getting multi million pound deals over the line isn't easy. Other clubs do no better than us. Giving up too early for the better player is not a winning strategy. Neither is telling everyone that we will only deal early.
Leandro Daimao and Suso That way the lunatic fringe will tie themselves in knots because we'd signed somebody yet neither of them are remotely what we need, yet at the same time it'd finally put an end to Reddit ****posts about signing Daimao and at least three years of HITC saying we should sign Suso...
My view on Hoddle is based on his failings as a man manager...tactically he was very good but from his Swindon days onwards there were concerns raised by ex players about his man management skills. It was the world cup 1998 that convinced me that he was not a good manager. Firstly, there was the Gazza situation. Hoddle claimed in 97 that Gazza should not be dropped after he was found to have beaten his wife ("we should show forgiveness") but then dropped him from the world cup squad for having a late night out and being filmed eating a burger and being pissed ( even though he took other heavy drinkers such Sheringham, Keown, Ince). During that tournament he threw Beckham to the wolves after his sending off v Argentina. I ain't a fan of Beckham but his treatment by Hoddle was appalling... I can not think of any other manager who would not have defended their player in thst situation. Then after the world cup he released his "world cup diary" in which he detailed what happened with Gazza. His ditching of Ray Parlour for not taking his faith healer seriously is another bizarre exsmple of his poor man management.
I would be grateful for the real number crunchers on the forum to lend a hand and run a proper analysis of our spending habits, but an 18-year period under one owner is A) a rarity in modern football, and B) Easily a big enough sample to start noticing trends. Taking into account how the face of the game has changed over that period, I think the following observations aren't too far away from the truth behind ENIC's strategy: 1) They invest pretty generously when they feel it will lift the club to the next level. a)We saw that in the first few seasons of their tenure, where net spends of £13m and £14m were poured into the project of lifting us from mid-table stagnation. b) We saw it again under BMJ as the club made a move on the top 6 for the first time. Net spends of £18m and £24m confirmed this ambition. c) Net spends post-BMJ reveal that the club genuinely believed Juande Ramos would be the man to consolidate our place as a European side and begin the push to break the top 4 cartel. £34m and £20m net spends confirm this. d) We saw it again, albeit at a smaller scale (due to relative levels of money in the game overall) at the beginning of Poch's reign, recording net spends of £28m and £25m after the 'Leicester Season'. 2) They don't invest when they don't trust that the man in charge will be able to take us to the next level. a) As evidenced by the net spend ahead of Santini's disappointing reign (£5m). b) And further evidenced as trust between Levy and Harry broke down (Net profit of £1m, £17m spend, net profit of £27m). 3) In the post-Harry era, we have recorded a net spend in just 2 seasons. The other 5 have seen net profits made. There is no need to search far and wide for an explanation for this as the simplest one sits just adjacent to the site of the old stadium. What all of this means, I haven't the foggiest clue. I find looking at numbers cathartic at this stage of a transfer window.
There are so many scenarios as to how this could end with varying degrees of success (or failure) that’s it’s quite hard to predict. The best possible window would see Eriksen, Toby and Jan sign new deals whilst Sess, Bruno/ GLC and Hyseij/ Atal arrive. A Nando replacement would also be great but if Poch can manage Kane better it isn’t a necessity. The worst possible window would see Eriksen and Toby leave and only Sess arrive. Though I’m confident that won’t happen. Somewhere in the middle is where I’d be ‘content’ and it’s what I think may be a possibility. Eriksen leaving ( ), Toby staying but just for the season before leaving on a free, Sess, GLC/ Bruno (both would be brilliant but unlikely) and Atal/ Hyseij coming in.
Where Toby is concerned, and looking at the central defender position overall, isn't there a case that these guys can play at the top level until their mid 30s as opposed to some of the more offensive positions? If so, isn't there a case for offering Toby the long-term contract he's allegedly after?
We offered him £130k with a three year deal plus option of a fourth I think. He wanted circa £180k a week which would’ve made him the third best paid CB in Europe at the time. For as good as he is, he’s not that good to be demanding such a wage in my opinion and seemingly no one else has thought so either. If we’re to offer any of our CBs that sort of dough it has to be Jan.
It says : Nothing related to Lo Celso other than piccies of him, but it will keep rcl happy for today at least. < scorchio >
First one says something like so close yet so far for Tottenham. Second one I had to click on the article as I wasn’t understanding the €38m negotiation. Basically it’s on about how they paid €22m and are looking at making a €38m profit if they sell for the quoted €60m.
PROS * Ndombele is the Dembele replacement we needed a year ago * Additional creative impetus and potential for goals from midfield in Lo Celso * Pace out wide while helping the HG quota in Sessegnon * Sorting out Lo Celso was a real bonus, as a couple of days ago I was legit worried it would be Ndombele 2018 all over again * Pace and trickery and a potentially great prospect on the right in Clarke * Amos' loan could be huge for him and for us a year from now * Cleared out some of the deadwood, notably Janssen * No significant departures...yet CONS * Right back is a potential weakness even after selling Trippier, especially with Foyth's injury * Dybala turning into a minefield of third-party bollocks put a damper on the last couple of days * The lack of any real interest in GKN and Wanyama continues to be an issue, given they take up non-HG spots * No real cover for Harry Kane, which puts extra pressure on (presumably) Parrott * A few of the U23s need loans yet these have yet to materialise, notably Oakley-Boothe to Swansea* * - If a few loans do materialise in the coming days or weeks, this one can be crossed off
Solid 7.5/10 for me. First choice targets all signed along with a young prospect that's gone back out on loan. Some deadwood shifted whilst no key player has left (yet). Would've liked a new RB but I'm happy for KWP/ Foyth to stake a claim, if by January it's not working, it'll need to be revisited as a priority. If Eriksen can somehow be persuaded to sign a new deal, even if it includes a guarantee we'll accept a (reasonable) bid from abroad, so be it.
