ENIC

[DubSpur]

Problem is those you are looking to offer the top wages for, other top clubs are usually in for them too. Look at Diaz who would have been a game changer as an example. We are at the bottom end of prestige when it comes to the real big clubs, the stars might align to sign a top player in a one off but usually there are more attractive options for those players in that wage bracket - Semenyo being the latest. It's not as simple for a club like ours at this stage....

We missed the boat on those type of signings around 2017-19. It would've needed a cash injection from the Lewis family and that was never going to happen. We'd need to be consistently in the top 4 again before we have any hope of attracting those signings.

 

[Mikey10]

It's a bit mad that when you compare us to The Dippers. We've spent 250m more on transfers than them in that period net.

If you translate that from fees into wages, that'd give us an extra 1m a week to play with which could be the difference between signing risky punts and top players. The difference between offering 150k a week and 250k a week for 10 players over 5 years.

I guess the risk is that you'd have your current squad knocking on the door for more money.

Problem is those you are looking to offer the top wages for, other top clubs are usually in for them too. Look at Diaz who would have been a game changer as an example. We are at the bottom end of prestige when it comes to the real big clubs, the stars might align to sign a top player in a one off but usually there are more attractive options for those players in that wage bracket - Semenyo being the latest. It's not as simple for a club like ours at this stage....

The bloke from The Athletic who was on VFTL last week said that the correlation between spending and PL success is not closely linked to transfer fees paid; it is most closely linked to spending on wages.

 

[Raziel]

Here's a controversial one. If RDZ keeps us up, do Vinai and Lange get credit for the appointment?

The question isn't "does it absolve them of all other sins?" but should they get some kudos for recruiting him? For me, I'd give them a little bit of credit. I wasn't 100% sold on him and am now whatever happens. I think he's been a breath of fresh air. And, let's be fair, it wasn't an easy appointment to make in some respects but they stuck to their guns. However, we were also left in a position where he could bend us over and f**k us dry because we were (and are) desperate. So, a bit of credit but that is far, far outweighed by the other catastrophic decisions they've taken even since Levy went.

Will they keep their jobs? I get the point @Finney Is Back made on giving Vinai time but I think his decision making thus far has been really poor. He seems to be very well thought of for his work at Woolwich but I don't see it. Lange, for me, has to go and go quick.

And regardless of what happens, I do think there needs to be a very strong and very loud demonstration at some point after the Everton game against the board and owners. What has happened/is happening this season is absolutely unacceptable even if we survive by the skin of our teeth.

I don't think its controversial, I think they should get praise for it. I think its balanced to.

I don't think it should be enough to keep Lange in a job, for me, if they whole things is about following stats then you can have the team (which ours is now huge) provide you with a list of candidates, what we need in Lange role is a born charismatic football person who can negotiate and also take decision on players with the eye test too. For me, and I grant I don't know the bloke, but he doesn't fill me with boardroom confidence of negotiating with some of the world footballing sharks. He lacks the personality.

Vinai, I think looks passive and uninspiring but you have to give him time, despite my reservations, I also think he will be hamstrung on action by the Lewis family given its their baby and always has been.

No, because the rumours/noise is it was neither of them, it was Nick Beucher who insisted that Frank be cut lose (after suggesting it in December) and later apparently insisted that we do whatever it takes to get RDZ.

Unlike others, there is nothing I've seen that suggests they deserve more time, and this is from years of experience of working with/at high level executive decision making

- All executives get to make bad decisions, especially when new to role/organization
- Where you doom yourself is doubling down on it (which they did with both the manager and transfer choices)
- Plus their blame Levy/previous exec window (6 months) is gone and actually makes the Frank decisions even worse (They could have fired him early and blamed Levy)
- In addition, as an observation (doubly true if piece about Nick Beucher is true), they sat as deer in the headlights watching the train crash, the lack of proactive action of any kind is its own damning statement

Lets be clear, the appointment of Frank, the decision to keep Frank beyond November, the failure to strengthen in January, and the decision to go Tudor are all actions that each deserve a detailed review, each with significant impact on the key decision makers. If we make it out of this and somehow end up walking into next season with same Vinai/Lange/Medical team, we have learnt nothing and nothing will change for better.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

No, because the rumours/noise is it was neither of them, it was Nick Beucher who insisted that Frank be cut lose (after suggesting it in December) and later apparently insisted that we do whatever it takes to get RDZ.

Unlike others, there is nothing I've seen that suggests they deserve more time, and this is from years of experience of working with/at high level executive decision making

- All executives get to make bad decisions, especially when new to role/organization
- Where you doom yourself is doubling down on it (which they did with both the manager and transfer choices)
- Plus their blame Levy/previous exec window (6 months) is gone and actually makes the Frank decisions even worse (They could have fired him early and blamed Levy)
- In addition, as an observation (doubly true if piece about Nick Beucher is true), they sat as deer in the headlights watching the train crash, the lack of proactive action of any kind is its own damning statement

Lets be clear, the appointment of Frank, the decision to keep Frank beyond November, the failure to strengthen in January, and the decision to go Tudor are all actions that each deserve a detailed review, each with significant impact on the key decision makers. If we make it out of this and somehow end up walking into next season with same Vinai/Lange/Medical team, we have learnt nothing and nothing will change for better.

Thoroughly agree with all of this.

Before reading your post, I was about to say they would deserve some credit for RDZ but that would be completely dwarfed by the decision to stick with Frank and waste this season. And I didn’t know the Beaucher piece for sure, and if that’s true then they deserve extremely little credit.

The Beaucher thing actually makes sense. Because there’s no world in which the same team that decides sticking with Frank is the right move, also has the conviction to go all out for De Zerbi. They are completely different managers, in style and in calibre. So it would have suggested a lack of joined up strategy or more likely, influence from elsewhere that forced them.

Vinai strikes me as a ‘we need to give a manager more time, it worked for Arteta’ framework which just bore no reality to the context and situation on the ground. And Lange will have advocated for Frank on the basis that they were mates from previous.

Even if there was no world in which RDZ would have come before we hired Tudor, the decision to stick with Frank is such an abysmal black mark on their decision making that I’m not sure their reputations can survive. I maybe have some sympathy for the fact that Vinai is learning the club and maybe would have learned from the mistake. But it’s just such a massive mistake. We have quite literally wasted a whole season, and could yet still be relegated. I’m not sure what justifies keeping Vinai other than not knowing who would replace him. And there’s absolutely no world in which we should keep Lange.

 

[glasgowspur]

No, because the rumours/noise is it was neither of them, it was Nick Beucher who insisted that Frank be cut lose (after suggesting it in December) and later apparently insisted that we do whatever it takes to get RDZ.

Unlike others, there is nothing I've seen that suggests they deserve more time, and this is from years of experience of working with/at high level executive decision making

- All executives get to make bad decisions, especially when new to role/organization
- Where you doom yourself is doubling down on it (which they did with both the manager and transfer choices)
- Plus their blame Levy/previous exec window (6 months) is gone and actually makes the Frank decisions even worse (They could have fired him early and blamed Levy)
- In addition, as an observation (doubly true if piece about Nick Beucher is true), they sat as deer in the headlights watching the train crash, the lack of proactive action of any kind is its own damning statement

Lets be clear, the appointment of Frank, the decision to keep Frank beyond November, the failure to strengthen in January, and the decision to go Tudor are all actions that each deserve a detailed review, each with significant impact on the key decision makers. If we make it out of this and somehow end up walking into next season with same Vinai/Lange/Medical team, we have learnt nothing and nothing will change for better.

Everyone makes mistakes, it's how you deal with it that matters.
Ours have been compounded rather than rectified.

 

[harr1984]

The bloke from The Athletic who was on VFTL last week said that the correlation between spending and PL success is not closely linked to transfer fees paid; it is most closely linked to spending on wages.

Absolutely - Someone like Kvaratskhelia cost around the same price as a Solanke/Richarlison but he of course would be given a better salary.

Seems odd that some people on here want to be dismissive of comments around us being conservative on wages when it quite blatantly is a big differentiator.....

​

 

[Raziel]

Absolutely - Someone like Kvaratskhelia cost around the same price as a Solanke/Richarlison but he of course would be given a better salary.

Seems odd that some people on here want to be dismissive of comments around us being conservative on wages when it quite blatantly is a big differentiator.....

​

Wages matter if you have the players to pay the wages to.

We don't have elite/WC players in the squad at the moment, hence our wages don't need to (nor should they be matching top 5 at the moment), we have so many players under 24 that are developing their game.

The issue that breaks in the wages argument is - who deserves those wages that will come to us over City/United/Scum/Liverpool/Chelsea? Semenyo didn't choose City because we wouldn't pay wages, same for Mbeumo with United, they choose the club not the wages (and with United you get both).

Yes in the long run we need to look at our wage structure and ensure we are paying competitively (but this isn't 2014 and Romero, Gallagher, Xavi are all earning decent clip), but why we are where we are has very little to do with wages and more to do with manager and transfer choices.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Absolutely - Someone like Kvaratskhelia cost around the same price as a Solanke/Richarlison but he of course would be given a better salary.

Seems odd that some people on here want to be dismissive of comments around us being conservative on wages when it quite blatantly is a big differentiator.....

I don't see many deny it TBH, maybe not looking closely enough granted.

For me I think there is context to it, no doubt you have spend well to have prolonged periods of success but I also see more clubs spending well and failing (not just be default of coming 2nd all the time) but there is so much wastage in the league on wages and its one of the issues thats creating so much financial tension for clubs.

So there has to be a balance, I want us to spend more on areas to ensure success, but I want that spend, even the larger wages to be done smarter, there is absolutely no point in spending large wages on crap players for the sack of it and that will no doubt happen. Just because we can point out the potential hits we could have made in the past doesn't we wouldn't also be making mistakes. Unlike Chelsea and City of the past we can't afford to make good decisions straight after making bad ones, IMO their examples have gone a long way to falsely paint the exact route needed to be taken. There is IMO a balance of both

 

[Lemonade Money]

No, because the rumours/noise is it was neither of them, it was Nick Beucher who insisted that Frank be cut lose (after suggesting it in December) and later apparently insisted that we do whatever it takes to get RDZ.

Unlike others, there is nothing I've seen that suggests they deserve more time, and this is from years of experience of working with/at high level executive decision making

- All executives get to make bad decisions, especially when new to role/organization
- Where you doom yourself is doubling down on it (which they did with both the manager and transfer choices)
- Plus their blame Levy/previous exec window (6 months) is gone and actually makes the Frank decisions even worse (They could have fired him early and blamed Levy)
- In addition, as an observation (doubly true if piece about Nick Beucher is true), they sat as deer in the headlights watching the train crash, the lack of proactive action of any kind is its own damning statement

Lets be clear, the appointment of Frank, the decision to keep Frank beyond November, the failure to strengthen in January, and the decision to go Tudor are all actions that each deserve a detailed review, each with significant impact on the key decision makers. If we make it out of this and somehow end up walking into next season with same Vinai/Lange/Medical team, we have learnt nothing and nothing will change for better.

I'm more concerned about who's running the club, than whether we stay up or not.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Absolutely - Someone like Kvaratskhelia cost around the same price as a Solanke/Richarlison but he of course would be given a better salary.

Seems odd that some people on here want to be dismissive of comments around us being conservative on wages when it quite blatantly is a big differentiator.....

​

Paratici was trying to sign Kvaratshhelia for Spurs for a good while before he went to Napoli. Not sure what the reasons were why he ended up in Italy and not England at the time but Paratici was really trying to get him.

 

[billyiddo]

Wages matter if you have the players to pay the wages to.

We don't have elite/WC players in the squad at the moment, hence our wages don't need to (nor should they be matching top 5 at the moment), we have so many players under 24 that are developing their game.

The issue that breaks in the wages argument is - who deserves those wages that will come to us over City/United/Scum/Liverpool/Chelsea? Semenyo didn't choose City because we wouldn't pay wages, same for Mbeumo with United, they choose the club not the wages (and with United you get both).

Yes in the long run we need to look at our wage structure and ensure we are paying competitively (but this isn't 2014 and Romero, Gallagher, Xavi are all earning decent clip), but why we are where we are has very little to do with wages and more to do with manager and transfer choices.

We're back to pre Poch times where we need smart (lucky?) squad building & managerial appointments to work out and result in us performing to a level that makes us attractive to the quality of player that will command that sort of pay. If you throw money at players from a poor starting position you end up with players that are more of a gamble, as in the established teams aren't convinced enough to move on them.

 

[harr1984]

Paratici was trying to sign Kvaratshhelia for Spurs for a good while before he went to Napoli. Not sure what the reasons were why he ended up in Italy and not England at the time but Paratici was really trying to get him.

Didn't know we was seriously in for him. That's a shame, what a player....

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Didn't know we was seriously in for him. That's a shame, what a player....

We scouted him but decided against going for him if reports are to be believed. He left for 9m at the time, so I suspect it was style not money

 

[glasgowspur]

If we offer £50k pw more than city most players are still going to choose city, city guarantees you trophies.