• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Antonio Conte - officially NOT the coach of THFC

I may be in a minority but I don't want Poch back. He had run out of ideas and enthusiasm and nothing I have seen from his PSG stint suggests he has been revitalised.

He was amazing for us and a appears to be a lively man but going back to him post-Conte will end in quick disappointment IMO.

Don't think Conte will bail on us after less than a season anyway. Lazy journalism.
 
Is keeping Kane the cheap option?
To replace him will cost serious money, and i don't think we will get the mega deal everyone thinks we will.
£75m tops, and i look at the squad and don't think that is enough.

Keeping Kane is the expensive option, because you're right, this squad has major problems and will require money to fix. Selling Kane is the cheap option because you can just spend that money on fixing the squad, in part.

As for how much we'd get, I doubt it would be less than 100-125m, tbh. You are buying a guaranteed 20 goals and 10-odd assists a season, for however many seasons - that will cost whomever prises him off us.
 
Why on earth would Conte want to go to PSG where there is no real competition to win the French league. There would be far more walkover league games than glamorous champions league games. He is nothing if not competitive and the lack of it would drive him mad.
 
Keeping Kane is the expensive option, because you're right, this squad has major problems and will require money to fix. Selling Kane is the cheap option because you can just spend that money on fixing the squad, in part.

As for how much we'd get, I doubt it would be less than 100-125m, tbh. You are buying a guaranteed 20 goals and 10-odd assists a season, for however many seasons - that will cost whomever prises him off us.
Who wants to buy him though? City seemingly have a deal for Haaland. Real are going for Mbappe. Chelsea have lost Roman's wealth and willingness to spend it.

Just about the only team who have the resources and the need for a striker like Kane is probably United. They possibly would go for him but he'd be foolish to accept their offer. While they are more ambitious than ourselves they are in a bigger state of flux than we are.

None of the Italian clubs or any of the other Spanish sides have the funds to to pay what it would take to sign him. There is PSG but given how they are perceived in the UK I can't see Kane seeing that as a trophy route he would want to take. With City out of the picture selling Kane for the fee we would like doesn't seem so obvious and even with them in the picture it didn't happen. [emoji848]

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
 
Keeping Kane is the expensive option, because you're right, this squad has major problems and will require money to fix. Selling Kane is the cheap option because you can just spend that money on fixing the squad, in part.

As for how much we'd get, I doubt it would be less than 100-125m, tbh. You are buying a guaranteed 20 goals and 10-odd assists a season, for however many seasons - that will cost whomever prises him off us.

The teams Kane would want to go to don't need his 20 goals a season, or at least not as much as we do, they have the squad depth to spread goals around.
There's too many question marks around Kane for the really big fee we would want.
Ankles
Age
Big game mentality.
Either of those are a deal breaker, especially when there are proven younger options out there.
 
I may be in a minority but I don't want Poch back. He had run out of ideas and enthusiasm and nothing I have seen from his PSG stint suggests he has been revitalised.

He was amazing for us and a appears to be a lively man but going back to him post-Conte will end in quick disappointment IMO.

Don't think Conte will bail on us after less than a season anyway. Lazy journalism.

I don’t think you are, certainly not to replace Conte.

The DOF wants Conte and they seem to work well together, I’m not sure the rush into replacing him when we haven’t even started on the rebuild.

The squad isn’t good enough, people wanting Moura at wing back shows just how bad it is after 7/8 of them
 
Last edited:
I don’t think you are, certainly not to replace Conte.

The DOF wants Conte and they seem to work well together, I’m not sure the rush into replacing him when we haven’t even started on the rebuild.

The squad isn’t good enough, people wanting Moura at wing back shows just how bad it is after 7/8 of them

Paratici has signed like 7 players right? Do they not count towards “The rebuild” that a lot of people continue heralding? And we signed players pre DOF post Poch. Is there an indicator to signal the start of the almost biblical rebuild, like a pistol going off or four apocalyptic football agents on horseback?

This term rebuild has me banging my head against a wall as it’s an entirely unrealistic use of a word. You have to knock a house down to the ground to rebuild it, otherwise it’s just called making repairs / doing maintenance.

It’s such an easy out for the dreamy Poch lovers, “He wisely said we needed a rebuild, why didn’t we get rid of absolutely everyone and start from scratch, it was so obvious” - That’s beyond even football manager levels of ignorance, it’s not vaguely possible in the way the transfer market / contracts work.
 
Paratici has signed like 7 players right? Do they not count towards “The rebuild” that a lot of people continue heralding? And we signed players pre DOF post Poch. Is there an indicator to signal the start of the almost biblical rebuild, like a pistol going off or four apocalyptic football agents on horseback?

This term rebuild has me banging my head against a wall as it’s an entirely unrealistic use of a word. You have to knock a house down to the ground to rebuild it, otherwise it’s just called making repairs / doing maintenance.

It’s such an easy out for the dreamy Poch lovers, “He wisely said we needed a rebuild, why didn’t we get rid of absolutely everyone and start from scratch, it was so obvious” - That’s beyond even football manager levels of ignorance, it’s not vaguely possible in the way the transfer market / contracts work.

a fair point, tweaking to contes needs would be a better way of putting it.
 
I may be in a minority but I don't want Poch back. He had run out of ideas and enthusiasm and nothing I have seen from his PSG stint suggests he has been revitalised.

He was amazing for us and a appears to be a lively man but going back to him post-Conte will end in quick disappointment IMO.

Don't think Conte will bail on us after less than a season anyway. Lazy journalism.

You are not in a minority mate, a lot of fans i travel with do not want him back (as do i). He has had his time here and we should look forward not backwards.
 
Keeping Kane is the expensive option, because you're right, this squad has major problems and will require money to fix. Selling Kane is the cheap option because you can just spend that money on fixing the squad, in part.

As for how much we'd get, I doubt it would be less than 100-125m, tbh. You are buying a guaranteed 20 goals and 10-odd assists a season, for however many seasons - that will cost whomever prises him off us.

He'll be 29 in july. Doubt we'd get over £100m. From who? He doesn't want to leave england. City are getting haaland. Liverpool won't spend that. Levy won't sell him to chelsea even with abramovich gone. Utd? Saudi Sportswashing Machine? Would he go there?

Edit - just saw bishop said basically the same.
 
Last edited:
Paratici has signed like 7 players right? Do they not count towards “The rebuild” that a lot of people continue heralding? And we signed players pre DOF post Poch. Is there an indicator to signal the start of the almost biblical rebuild, like a pistol going off or four apocalyptic football agents on horseback?

This term rebuild has me banging my head against a wall as it’s an entirely unrealistic use of a word. You have to knock a house down to the ground to rebuild it, otherwise it’s just called making repairs / doing maintenance.

It’s such an easy out for the dreamy Poch lovers, “He wisely said we needed a rebuild, why didn’t we get rid of absolutely everyone and start from scratch, it was so obvious” - That’s beyond even football manager levels of ignorance, it’s not vaguely possible in the way the transfer market / contracts work.
I looked at the numbers back in Jan and since the CL final we’d bought 24 and sold 18, weighing out £355m and receiving £112m, so net spend of £243m. Contrary to the popular narrative, we’ve spent brick loads.

The “painful” rebuild has been well on the way for 3 years already, it’s just we’ve bought a load of old brick. Probably why Paratici was brought in to rectify the mess and wasted millions.
 
I looked at the numbers back in Jan and since the CL final we’d bought 24 and sold 18, weighing out £355m and receiving £112m, so net spend of £243m. Contrary to the popular narrative, we’ve spent brick loads.

The “painful” rebuild has been well on the way for 3 years already, it’s just we’ve bought a load of old brick. Probably why Paratici was brought in to rectify the mess and wasted millions.

Yup, following a net spend of almost a quarter of a £billion over the past 3 years it is disappointing quite how weak out squad continues to be.

09BEE9C1-3203-411C-9A38-3F2F96CBDCC7.jpeg 933C3C95-0529-4A12-A575-C38304FE4C2F.jpeg F63CB92A-5608-4589-BE63-E75D916393FE.jpeg
 
I looked at the numbers back in Jan and since the CL final we’d bought 24 and sold 18, weighing out £355m and receiving £112m, so net spend of £243m. Contrary to the popular narrative, we’ve spent brick loads.

The “painful” rebuild has been well on the way for 3 years already, it’s just we’ve bought a load of old brick. Probably why Paratici was brought in to rectify the mess and wasted millions.

Paratici in January working under Conte did brilliantly and those two new arrivals gave us a fighting chance for top four. I was sceptical at the time but props to him.

The last summer version working towards Nuno’s vision I’m less enamoured with, it’s a hypothetical but I do think that even if Royal was playing in a back four we’d still have been pulling our hair out, add Gill and Sarr + Gollini in to the mix and it seems like we’re still making odd choices under a DOF - If the vision lurches wildly from one way to another and big money signings are rendered redundant by a formation change it reeks of short term thinking, which a DOF is there to counter right?

Not trying to go in hard on @Legohamster as it’s a term used a lot but as you say, we’ve spent a lot. Not to go full on pedantic but literally every team in existence is trying to improve their squad, no one is actively trying to diminish the quality of the team. There’s probably some justifiable resentment due to signing nobody for three transfer windows but for us, the fabled rebuild is a bit of an oversimplification (Utd this summer losing five or six players out of contract and still being able to spend 200m without question is another situation entirely)
 
I looked at the numbers back in Jan and since the CL final we’d bought 24 and sold 18, weighing out £355m and receiving £112m, so net spend of £243m. Contrary to the popular narrative, we’ve spent brick loads.

The “painful” rebuild has been well on the way for 3 years already, it’s just we’ve bought a load of old brick. Probably why Paratici was brought in to rectify the mess and wasted millions.

Great post. Right on the money.
 
Who wants to buy him though? City seemingly have a deal for Haaland. Real are going for Mbappe. Chelsea have lost Roman's wealth and willingness to spend it.

Just about the only team who have the resources and the need for a striker like Kane is probably United. They possibly would go for him but he'd be foolish to accept their offer. While they are more ambitious than ourselves they are in a bigger state of flux than we are.

None of the Italian clubs or any of the other Spanish sides have the funds to to pay what it would take to sign him. There is PSG but given how they are perceived in the UK I can't see Kane seeing that as a trophy route he would want to take. With City out of the picture selling Kane for the fee we would like doesn't seem so obvious and even with them in the picture it didn't happen. [emoji848]

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk

City might get Haaland, but I don't think it's as much of a done deal as the reports a few weeks back were claiming. The agent fees alone are ginormous, and City generally like to be seen as balking at getting fleeced, which they would be with Raiola asking for 70m on top od the 70m transfer fee.

Could also be Haaland goes to Madrid and City get desperate. If not them, United always have the money to throw at being ambitious, as you've pointed out - if not them, then overseas, to Madrid, PSG or Bayern.

One thing's fairly certain in my mind - Kane doesn't want to be playing Conference League/Europa League and remain trophyless at this stage in his career. He might stick it out if we get CL and keep Conte - otherwise, he's gone imo, and I don't think going abroad (for instance) is as unpalatable to him as is typically imagined.
 
Paratici in January working under Conte did brilliantly and those two new arrivals gave us a fighting chance for top four. I was sceptical at the time but props to him.

The last summer version working towards Nuno’s vision I’m less enamoured with, it’s a hypothetical but I do think that even if Royal was playing in a back four we’d still have been pulling our hair out, add Gill and Sarr + Gollini in to the mix and it seems like we’re still making odd choices under a DOF - If the vision lurches wildly from one way to another and big money signings are rendered redundant by a formation change it reeks of short term thinking, which a DOF is there to counter right?

Not trying to go in hard on @Legohamster as it’s a term used a lot but as you say, we’ve spent a lot. Not to go full on pedantic but literally every team in existence is trying to improve their squad, no one is actively trying to diminish the quality of the team. There’s probably some justifiable resentment due to signing nobody for three transfer windows but for us, the fabled rebuild is a bit of an oversimplification (Utd this summer losing five or six players out of contract and still being able to spend 200m without question is another situation entirely)

The oddest thing to me about the summer was hiring Nuno, *not* letting him hire his full set of coaches, and then forbidding him from playing 3 at the back for some bizarre reason.

Yes, he was our 210th choice and a bargain bin pick-me-up, but why hobble him like that out of the gate for literally zero reason? 3 at the back is what brought him success at Wolves, and his coaches were probably a big part of his few successes - he isn't the most communicative, so I imagine his coaches do that for him and he trusts them.

If we miss out on top four as seems likely, it will come down to appointing Nuno in the baffling way we did. One day I'd like to see an explanation of the thought processes of that summer.
 
He'll be 29 in july. Doubt we'd get over £100m. From who? He doesn't want to leave england. City are getting haaland. Liverpool won't spend that. Levy won't sell him to chelsea even with abramovich gone. Utd? Saudi Sportswashing Machine? Would he go there?

Edit - just saw bishop said basically the same.

See above, mate - took a stab at a reply.
 
City might get Haaland, but I don't think it's as much of a done deal as the reports a few weeks back were claiming. The agent fees alone are ginormous, and City generally like to be seen as balking at getting fleeced, which they would be with Raiola asking for 70m on top od the 70m transfer fee.

Could also be Haaland goes to Madrid and City get desperate. If not them, United always have the money to throw at being ambitious, as you've pointed out - if not them, then overseas, to Madrid, PSG or Bayern.

One thing's fairly certain in my mind - Kane doesn't want to be playing Conference League/Europa League and remain trophyless at this stage in his career. He might stick it out if we get CL and keep Conte - otherwise, he's gone imo, and I don't think going abroad (for instance) is as unpalatable to him as is typically imagined.

City will be paying raiola handsomely off the books.
 
Back