Tottenham Hotspur Karen Club....what do they do?

[BrainOfLevy]

That sounds like a very one-sided information source. Has the club ever publicly stated that the Trust changed their plans? It certainly wouldn't be out of character for the Trust to publicly insist on something they already know will happen so as to seem to matter.

I'd also take issue as to whether a few £ here or there is anything of import.

I think your last line is key. I’m sure the trust can help in some of these quite low level things. Tiering of tickets and what have you.

But the absolute cringiest, most awful, most embarrassing way they can act is to ask the club for an explanation of football business. Eg why haven’t we signed anyone. It’s simply nothing to do with them, and it damages their credibility for the small things they could have an impact on. Ticket prices - probably is something to do with them. Because of the tension between a fan and club (which we have to admit is different to that of customer vs business just because we will always have some tribal loyalty ingrained in us, and as such it’s good to demonstrate some sort of collective effort to ensure the prices don’t get too out of hand). Football business? They haven’t got a clue.

They don’t have a clue, and it just makes that look much, much worse. It makes them look like amateurs stepping well outside of their station, and it means no one will take them seriously on anything that actually is important. They don’t seem to get it either, that if they demonstrated a capability to understand football business they might actually better their relationship with the club.

The MK boycott is a somewhat different issue, but again them over stepping their mark. The idea that it’s a ‘personal choice, we aren’t telling you what to do’ is just nonsense. If it’s personal they don’t need to publicise it. And in this instance I think it’s clear the club is doing all it can to build all of us a bloody nice new stadium, and it isn’t easy. The last thing we need is the group that is supposed to represent the fans actually adding to the problems when there doesn’t seem to be any other way out of the situation. They should be in the trenches with the club here, helping them pull through, not encouraging a lack of support to the squad who have to contend with 2 home stadiums this year.

Really cringey, embarrassing people. A trust could have a role, not denying that, but these guys do a sub par job. They are 5/10 at best. I’d love to stand for it myself if I could, but not being in the UK all that much at the moment I assume means I can’t. In any case though, there is a different between thinking the club should be held to account on certain things, and allowing some poorly informed people operating with ideas way above their station the power to claim they represent us. They do a very poor job of it.

 

[Libero]

I think your last line is key. I’m sure the trust can help in some of these quite low level things. Tiering of tickets and what have you.

But the absolute cringiest, most awful, most embarrassing way they can act is to ask the club for an explanation of football business. Eg why haven’t we signed anyone. It’s simply nothing to do with them, and it damages their credibility for the small things they could have an impact on. Ticket prices - probably is something to do with them. Because of the tension between a fan and club (which we have to admit is different to that of customer vs business just because we will always have some tribal loyalty ingrained in us, and as such it’s good to demonstrate some sort of collective effort to ensure the prices don’t get too out of hand). Football business? They haven’t got a clue.

They don’t have a clue, and it just makes that look much, much worse. It makes them look like amateurs stepping well outside of their station, and it means no one will take them seriously on anything that actually is important. They don’t seem to get it either, that if they demonstrated a capability to understand football business they might actually better their relationship with the club.

The MK boycott is a somewhat different issue, but again them over stepping their mark. The idea that it’s a ‘personal choice, we aren’t telling you what to do’ is just nonsense. If it’s personal they don’t need to publicise it. And in this instance I think it’s clear the club is doing all it can to build all of us a bloody nice new stadium, and it isn’t easy. The last thing we need is the group that is supposed to represent the fans actually adding to the problems when there doesn’t seem to be any other way out of the situation. They should be in the trenches with the club here, helping them pull through, not encouraging a lack of support to the squad who have to contend with 2 home stadiums this year.

Really cringey, embarrassing people. A trust could have a role, not denying that, but these guys do a sub par job. They are 5/10 at best. I’d love to stand for it myself if I could, but not being in the UK all that much at the moment I assume means I can’t. In any case though, there is a different between thinking the club should be held to account on certain things, and allowing some poorly informed people operating with ideas way above their station the power to claim they represent us. They do a very poor job of it.

I wouldn't disagree with much of what you have said and I agree that their broad performance would, in my opinion, probably be about the same 5/6 out of 10.

The thing is though, the club have to meet them halfway and actually want to engage. They certainly did before but something seems to have changed in the summer of 2017 whereby the club appeared from what I have read and seen anyway, literally rowed back on any sort of comms and engagement prior to the move to Wembley. I don't see how that can be healthy and I can understand why the trust would be mildly annoyed by that when until that point relations were supposedly pretty good but to then not engage right before we have a big move seems, well, a bit like they actually don't really care about fan engagement. They might have had a good reason for suddenly reducing conversation to nil but you would have to agree its not helpful at an important time.

Personally, I think its wrong for the club to go to MK just because its a 3rd venue and I just don't think that's correct. We aren't in a position to host the game and really we should have had to switch the tie and maybe insisted on a higher than normal away allocation. As it is, we are playing in a venue with 3-4k more than Vicarage Road and will still have to compensate Watford for the lost revenue on Wembley not being used. So its money for rent to MK, Money to Watford and then whats left for us. The trust using MK Dons/Wimbledon as an issue is rubbish imo because if they cared that strongly then they would look at the Wimbledon/Kingstonian situation that essentially forced Kingstonian out of their home.

The transfer window thing I think has been blown up a bit out of proportion. I didn't see the memo post window but I know that they had said after ST prices were announced in May that part of the thinking from the club in explanation for that was to make us competitive in the transfer market as the income from the general admission STs plus all the initial corporate money amounted to a sizeable sum, definitely £45-£50m in normal ST money alone. Now, given that was the clubs stance on pricing structure then whilst I wouldn't agree with them asking for a business case as to why we didn't sign specific players at specific sums, I think feeding back to people that they wanted to know on behalf of fans what had happened to not be active in the market isn't an unfair question given what the club have pulled in but again, that is my opinion. My concern is that perhaps the financial situation is a bit more precarious then we would think and if that's the case then I understand to a degree the lack of movement but it comes back to engaging a little more with the fanbase. It doesn't have to be detailed specifics that put you at a disadvantage but a very general overview would have sufficed after a bemusing window.

I'm with you, I think they need to be more professional and PR savvy and also do more to engage with and make sure they represent a larger portion of the fanbase but they can only do so much if the club withdraws and won't even give them information on an issue like ticketing until 20 mins or so before it is released to the general public. As for you standing, being in the UK I don't think is a pre requisite but obviously it would be hassle for you but I'm all for it if it becomes more representative. I think there is a place for a supporters trust going forward, it isn't case of either or, you can have a middle ground rather than stating they should cease to exist or at the other end of the spectrum, have a position automatically on the board.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I wouldn't disagree with much of what you have said and I agree that their broad performance would, in my opinion, probably be about the same 5/6 out of 10.

The thing is though, the club have to meet them halfway and actually want to engage. They certainly did before but something seems to have changed in the summer of 2017 whereby the club appeared from what I have read and seen anyway, literally rowed back on any sort of comms and engagement prior to the move to Wembley. I don't see how that can be healthy and I can understand why the trust would be mildly annoyed by that when until that point relations were supposedly pretty good but to then not engage right before we have a big move seems, well, a bit like they actually don't really care about fan engagement. They might have had a good reason for suddenly reducing conversation to nil but you would have to agree its not helpful at an important time.

Personally, I think its wrong for the club to go to MK just because its a 3rd venue and I just don't think that's correct. We aren't in a position to host the game and really we should have had to switch the tie and maybe insisted on a higher than normal away allocation. As it is, we are playing in a venue with 3-4k more than Vicarage Road and will still have to compensate Watford for the lost revenue on Wembley not being used. So its money for rent to MK, Money to Watford and then whats left for us. The trust using MK Dons/Wimbledon as an issue is rubbish imo because if they cared that strongly then they would look at the Wimbledon/Kingstonian situation that essentially forced Kingstonian out of their home.

The transfer window thing I think has been blown up a bit out of proportion. I didn't see the memo post window but I know that they had said after ST prices were announced in May that part of the thinking from the club in explanation for that was to make us competitive in the transfer market as the income from the general admission STs plus all the initial corporate money amounted to a sizeable sum, definitely £45-£50m in normal ST money alone. Now, given that was the clubs stance on pricing structure then whilst I wouldn't agree with them asking for a business case as to why we didn't sign specific players at specific sums, I think feeding back to people that they wanted to know on behalf of fans what had happened to not be active in the market isn't an unfair question given what the club have pulled in but again, that is my opinion. My concern is that perhaps the financial situation is a bit more precarious then we would think and if that's the case then I understand to a degree the lack of movement but it comes back to engaging a little more with the fanbase. It doesn't have to be detailed specifics that put you at a disadvantage but a very general overview would have sufficed after a bemusing window.

I'm with you, I think they need to be more professional and PR savvy and also do more to engage with and make sure they represent a larger portion of the fanbase but they can only do so much if the club withdraws and won't even give them information on an issue like ticketing until 20 mins or so before it is released to the general public. As for you standing, being in the UK I don't think is a pre requisite but obviously it would be hassle for you but I'm all for it if it becomes more representative. I think there is a place for a supporters trust going forward, it isn't case of either or, you can have a middle ground rather than stating they should cease to exist or at the other end of the spectrum, have a position automatically on the board.

Sorry why would wev have compensated Watford?

 

[Libero]

Sorry why would wev have compensated Watford?

I think it was said that we have to compensate them for the reduced capacity and playing at a neutral venue. We give them a share of the gate receipts in the cups and because we can't play at Wembley or the New ground but at a neutral venue we have to compensate them for the loss of revenue. Not sure how its calculated given you don't know how many tickets we would have sold in either place but we do have to give them money.

 

[Libero]

The more us fans pay, the better chance of success our club has. The new stadium sold out in days - that suggests to me that any attempt to decrease prices is likely to damage the club.

Is that really what you honestly think? Do you not think a balance should be struck from paying a certain amount ticket wise and the owners actually putting their hand in their pocket for once? The club has a better chance of success if they actually went for a moderate + net spend, GHod knows they've made enough out of the club to be sent to the Bahamas to be washed and when they sell the club it will be at a massive profit. This is a separate argument though.

The new stadium didn't sell out in days, they were desperately still trying to flog tickets in early august. The 1882 tickets still had much to be sold in July and to this day I still don't know if everything sold. They got way down the ST list, it was hardly in as hot demand as they might have expected, I've got a friend who was over 60,000 on the list in May 2017, 39,000 on the list in May 2018 and he was offered a ST in July at the new ground. That amount of non take up will be for a variety of reasons but I would be willing to bet mainly it was down to money - the seats that were left were at too high a price point for many to think it was worth the effort.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I wouldn't disagree with much of what you have said and I agree that their broad performance would, in my opinion, probably be about the same 5/6 out of 10.

The thing is though, the club have to meet them halfway and actually want to engage. They certainly did before but something seems to have changed in the summer of 2017 whereby the club appeared from what I have read and seen anyway, literally rowed back on any sort of comms and engagement prior to the move to Wembley. I don't see how that can be healthy and I can understand why the trust would be mildly annoyed by that when until that point relations were supposedly pretty good but to then not engage right before we have a big move seems, well, a bit like they actually don't really care about fan engagement. They might have had a good reason for suddenly reducing conversation to nil but you would have to agree its not helpful at an important time.

Personally, I think its wrong for the club to go to MK just because its a 3rd venue and I just don't think that's correct. We aren't in a position to host the game and really we should have had to switch the tie and maybe insisted on a higher than normal away allocation. As it is, we are playing in a venue with 3-4k more than Vicarage Road and will still have to compensate Watford for the lost revenue on Wembley not being used. So its money for rent to MK, Money to Watford and then whats left for us. The trust using MK Dons/Wimbledon as an issue is rubbish imo because if they cared that strongly then they would look at the Wimbledon/Kingstonian situation that essentially forced Kingstonian out of their home.

The transfer window thing I think has been blown up a bit out of proportion. I didn't see the memo post window but I know that they had said after ST prices were announced in May that part of the thinking from the club in explanation for that was to make us competitive in the transfer market as the income from the general admission STs plus all the initial corporate money amounted to a sizeable sum, definitely £45-£50m in normal ST money alone. Now, given that was the clubs stance on pricing structure then whilst I wouldn't agree with them asking for a business case as to why we didn't sign specific players at specific sums, I think feeding back to people that they wanted to know on behalf of fans what had happened to not be active in the market isn't an unfair question given what the club have pulled in but again, that is my opinion. My concern is that perhaps the financial situation is a bit more precarious then we would think and if that's the case then I understand to a degree the lack of movement but it comes back to engaging a little more with the fanbase. It doesn't have to be detailed specifics that put you at a disadvantage but a very general overview would have sufficed after a bemusing window.

I'm with you, I think they need to be more professional and PR savvy and also do more to engage with and make sure they represent a larger portion of the fanbase but they can only do so much if the club withdraws and won't even give them information on an issue like ticketing until 20 mins or so before it is released to the general public. As for you standing, being in the UK I don't think is a pre requisite but obviously it would be hassle for you but I'm all for it if it becomes more representative. I think there is a place for a supporters trust going forward, it isn't case of either or, you can have a middle ground rather than stating they should cease to exist or at the other end of the spectrum, have a position automatically on the board.

I can't comment on why they rowed back because I don't know that they had, but it is my understanding that the club do a lot to engage with the Trust when they have no obligation to do so at all. But as I say I can't comment on that.

The MK thing - I think the Club laid out that they canvassed fan opinion and the decision was made in line with what the majority wanted. It comes with the territory of being in the position to make the final decision in that they can't please everyone, but to flip the tie means that less fans get to support the team, and doing it this way means more fans can watch Spurs - and hopefully we can profit on the game. In the grand scheme of things any money we make from the match would probably be quite insignificant so I'm going to assume they genuinely wanted to please as many people as they could by offering as many people as possible the chance to support the team - in line with the fan survey. The Trust taking this 'principled stand', right after the cringe inducing transfer window post, is what has gotten a lot of people's backs up I would think. If it's a personal decision, they simply don't need to publicise it given the position they are in. The fact that they publicise not going to the game is tacit encouragement for other fans to do the same - it's just a headache that the club could do without given everything else they are trying to deal with, and given that this is how the Trust chooses to go about their business I'm not surprised the club takes any opportunity to row back.

But the transfer window thing was the worst one for me - just read the comment below

http://www.thstofficial.com/thst-news/thst-comment-on-transfer-window

• 'As a Supporters' Trust, it is not our job to involve ourselves in on-field matters' (why the fudge are you making this comment then),
• 'We do not believe in spending money or signing players for the sake of it' (again, why the fudge are you making this comment then),
• 'we ask for a full and believable explanation of how this transfer window has played out' (the absolute worst, insinuating that the club's default position would be to lie to the fans. Again, not surprising the club would not take this mob seriously).

It is simply nothing to do with them, because they don't have the information or the understanding to be able to comment on the situation, or hold the club to account in any way. Not only that, they go about it in an accusatory way which would quite rightly get the clubs' back up.

• 'Fans have paid the prices asked, but no signings have been made'. (Well yes, no signings were made, but we secured Poch, Kane, Sanchez, Winks etc on new contracts, Poch being massively important and Kane very likely smashing the previous wage structure).
• 'We have what has been developed, but for all the great football we've seen over the last few seasons, there are no trophies to show' (honestly guys, fudge the fudge off. How do they honestly expect to be taken seriously with rubbish like this?)
• 'We believe fans are entitled to a full and credible explanation of what has happened this summer. (There they go again, why do they need to demand credibility? As if the club would respond in any other way?).

Really it was just an absolute shambles, and make them look totally amateur hour. As I said, I get the benefit in having a collective that can bargain for better ticket prices. Fine. But to comment on a transfer window and assume the club wouldn't be honest? Way over-stepping the mark. If they understood to any extent the complexities of deal structuring, negotiations, all of the moving parts that have to be taken into account with other clubs, the fact that we are on a point where it is very tough to strengthen our squad seriously unless we enter a completely different financial plane, and the fact that Poch has previously stated he would rather improve what he has than sign for the sake of it, if they get all of that...they wouldn't make the statement. They wouldn't need to, because they'd understand. They'd be with the club, and the club would treat them with the credibility that means they could probably be heard better. As it is, they made themselves out to be an organisation that just doesn't get it.

 

[Libero]

I can't comment on why they rowed back because I don't know that they had, but it is my understanding that the club do a lot to engage with the Trust when they have no obligation to do so at all. But as I say I can't comment on that.

The MK thing - I think the Club laid out that they canvassed fan opinion and the decision was made in line with what the majority wanted. It comes with the territory of being in the position to make the final decision in that they can't please everyone, but to flip the tie means that less fans get to support the team, and doing it this way means more fans can watch Spurs - and hopefully we can profit on the game. In the grand scheme of things any money we make from the match would probably be quite insignificant so I'm going to assume they genuinely wanted to please as many people as they could by offering as many people as possible the chance to support the team - in line with the fan survey. The Trust taking this 'principled stand', right after the cringe inducing transfer window post, is what has gotten a lot of people's backs up I would think. If it's a personal decision, they simply don't need to publicise it given the position they are in. The fact that they publicise not going to the game is tacit encouragement for other fans to do the same - it's just a headache that the club could do without given everything else they are trying to deal with, and given that this is how the Trust chooses to go about their business I'm not surprised the club takes any opportunity to row back.

But the transfer window thing was the worst one for me - just read the comment below

http://www.thstofficial.com/thst-news/thst-comment-on-transfer-window

• 'As a Supporters' Trust, it is not our job to involve ourselves in on-field matters' (why the fudge are you making this comment then),
• 'We do not believe in spending money or signing players for the sake of it' (again, why the fudge are you making this comment then),
• 'we ask for a full and believable explanation of how this transfer window has played out' (the absolute worst, insinuating that the club's default position would be to lie to the fans. Again, not surprising the club would not take this mob seriously).

It is simply nothing to do with them, because they don't have the information or the understanding to be able to comment on the situation, or hold the club to account in any way. Not only that, they go about it in an accusatory way which would quite rightly get the clubs' back up.

• 'Fans have paid the prices asked, but no signings have been made'. (Well yes, no signings were made, but we secured Poch, Kane, Sanchez, Winks etc on new contracts, Poch being massively important and Kane very likely smashing the previous wage structure).
• 'We have what has been developed, but for all the great football we've seen over the last few seasons, there are no trophies to show' (honestly guys, fudge the fudge off. How do they honestly expect to be taken seriously with rubbish like this?)
• 'We believe fans are entitled to a full and credible explanation of what has happened this summer. (There they go again, why do they need to demand credibility? As if the club would respond in any other way?).

Really it was just an absolute shambles, and make them look totally amateur hour. As I said, I get the benefit in having a collective that can bargain for better ticket prices. Fine. But to comment on a transfer window and assume the club wouldn't be honest? Way over-stepping the mark. If they understood to any extent the complexities of deal structuring, negotiations, all of the moving parts that have to be taken into account with other clubs, the fact that we are on a point where it is very tough to strengthen our squad seriously unless we enter a completely different financial plane, and the fact that Poch has previously stated he would rather improve what he has than sign for the sake of it, if they get all of that...they wouldn't make the statement. They wouldn't need to, because they'd understand. They'd be with the club, and the club would treat them with the credibility that means they could probably be heard better. As it is, they made themselves out to be an organisation that just doesn't get it.

I think the end result of the survey was 46% in favour of a neutral venue (which in fairness wasn't advertised as being MK prior to survey) and 43% in favour of flipping it to a Watford home tie. I agree they wouldn't please everyone and the money made really in the grand scheme would be negligible but I think they went with it really on the basis that they just didn't want another away game which is fine.

In reference to your points on their questioning of the window, I take the point that the manner in which the questions were asked doesn't come across well but I think the soundbytes from the club made it a conflicting situation. They charged the prices that they charged because they wanted to be competitive in the transfer market but we didn't sign anyone, we were unable to sign even one player to improve our squad which is not because Pochettino didn't want to sign someone because he prefers to improve what he has, I don't believe that for one moment. The club also stated that the project wouldn't impact transfer funding......it kind of appears it has, if that was going to be the case then don't say it won't.

The manager also made a statement to the effect of wanting us to be bold and do business early etc.....again that didn't happen. The early close of the window, the world cup, the stadium etc I get they are all factors but they didn't come out of nowhere, everyone knew they were happening. So all these things combined will have contributed to them asking questions of the club which I don't disagree with although the wording could've been better. As for the public nature of it, they might have tried to ask these questions in a different manner in private and received no feedback at all and then decided to make it clear to people that they have at least tried to ask the question?

As I say, wording could be better, doesn't necessarily need to be as public but we don't know what led to that either. I personally don't have an issue with them asking what has gone on in the summer because I'm not happy with what went on anyway but I completely take your point and agree with you that they could do it in a much better way. The large majority might feel like everything is fantastic at the club but I certainly see dissenting voices and the latest delay and rumours of the Wembley being the venue for the season have caused people to feel like they have been lied to and the club have banked money and earnt interest on it before returning 1/19th at a time. That isn't quite how I feel but I certainly have seen and heard more of that view in the very recent days.

 

[Baleforce]

Being “competitive in the transfer market” and having a window where you don’t sign anyone are not mutually exclusive.

You judge recruitment policy over ten years not ten weeks.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I think it was said that we have to compensate them for the reduced capacity and playing at a neutral venue. We give them a share of the gate receipts in the cups and because we can't play at Wembley or the New ground but at a neutral venue we have to compensate them for the loss of revenue. Not sure how its calculated given you don't know how many tickets we would have sold in either place but we do have to give them money.

I’d find that hard to accept if I was spurs. Their getting a ground bigger than their own so would make more money at MK regardless

 

[Glenda's Legs]

What I think the Trust are missing about the whole MK thing (or are choosing to overlook), is that a decision had to be made very quickly as to where we wanted to host the game if we were drawn at home as we had to lodge our application to the league. (Has it actually been approved now?).
We had previously reached an agreement of some kind to play at MK last season, the logistics would already be known and approved with relevant authorities, and negotiating a once off game (or maybe a number of ad hoc league cup games just in case of future home draws) would be much easier and time efficient rather than having to start from scratch.
No matter how much backtracking the Trust co-chairs have done since, the message in their statement was pretty clear and was inappropriate.

On the Trust in general I think it is a good idea to have such an organisation. Levy himself has said he is just the custodian of the club, keeping it in good order to pass on to future generations. That there can be a channel for fans to make views known, possibly have input through consultation (without any obligation on the club), and potentially hold the club to account in the event of bad management is a good thing imo. Along with all the other liaison work that the Trust does on behalf of fans.

But...it is always going to be a relationship heavily weighted to the club's favour. The club will use the Trust when it chooses - e.g. in the last season at WHL, where there was always going to be contention over ticketing arrangements, the Trust, by all accounts, provided a lot of input and agreed with the approach taken. i think that level of engagement may have given them expectations as to the ongoing relationship, expectations which have been shot down since.
It is up to the Trust Board to work out the best way to engage and bring the club to the table but I can't see how an aggressive, demanding approach is going to help.
Having said that, I have seen comments on their twitter feed from fans (trust members?) who don't think they are aggressive enough, see them as ceding too easily to the club etc. So they are to some extent between a rock and a hard place in trying to please even their own membership, never mind any of the wider fanbase.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Ark at this gibbon...…….

And yet you think your argument is to be taken seriously, good luck lad.

 

[Libero]

And yet you think your argument is to be taken seriously, good luck lad.

Do you think I actually give a solitary what you think? While your posting nearly 10k times begging for a like, I am actually at games or getting on with my life. You just sound like a divvy cheerleader to be honest

 

[scaramanga]

And yet you think your argument is to be taken seriously, good luck lad.

Do you think I actually give a solitary what you think? While your posting nearly 10k times begging for a like, I am actually at games or getting on with my life. You just sound like a divvy cheerleader to be honest

Can we please leave all the childish stuff and get back to why the Trust are a load of gonads?

Thanks

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Do you think I actually give a solitary what you think? While your posting nearly 10k times begging for a like, I am actually at games or getting on with my life. You just sound like a divvy cheerleader to be honest

.

OK Guv, you win, you're the man, what was I even thinking...

 

[Moby]

Can we please leave all the childish stuff and get back to why the Trust are a load of gonads?

Thanks

Tldr!

 

[Libero]

.

OK Guv, you win, you're the man, what was I even thinking...

Probably how you can be an even bigger beg than normal

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I think the end result of the survey was 46% in favour of a neutral venue (which in fairness wasn't advertised as being MK prior to survey) and 43% in favour of flipping it to a Watford home tie. I agree they wouldn't please everyone and the money made really in the grand scheme would be negligible but I think they went with it really on the basis that they just didn't want another away game which is fine.

In reference to your points on their questioning of the window, I take the point that the manner in which the questions were asked doesn't come across well but I think the soundbytes from the club made it a conflicting situation. They charged the prices that they charged because they wanted to be competitive in the transfer market but we didn't sign anyone, we were unable to sign even one player to improve our squad which is not because Pochettino didn't want to sign someone because he prefers to improve what he has, I don't believe that for one moment. The club also stated that the project wouldn't impact transfer funding......it kind of appears it has, if that was going to be the case then don't say it won't.

The manager also made a statement to the effect of wanting us to be bold and do business early etc.....again that didn't happen. The early close of the window, the world cup, the stadium etc I get they are all factors but they didn't come out of nowhere, everyone knew they were happening. So all these things combined will have contributed to them asking questions of the club which I don't disagree with although the wording could've been better. As for the public nature of it, they might have tried to ask these questions in a different manner in private and received no feedback at all and then decided to make it clear to people that they have at least tried to ask the question?

As I say, wording could be better, doesn't necessarily need to be as public but we don't know what led to that either. I personally don't have an issue with them asking what has gone on in the summer because I'm not happy with what went on anyway but I completely take your point and agree with you that they could do it in a much better way. The large majority might feel like everything is fantastic at the club but I certainly see dissenting voices and the latest delay and rumours of the Wembley being the venue for the season have caused people to feel like they have been lied to and the club have banked money and earnt interest on it before returning 1/19th at a time. That isn't quite how I feel but I certainly have seen and heard more of that view in the very recent days.

I’m one of those people that thinks things are fantastic at the club - or rather, I trust that the people in power know what they are doing, and are trying their absolute best. I look at our long term progress with them in post vs our previous leadership and that of other clubs, and I’m confident we have the right people in charge doing the right stuff. I certainly don’t want to question them on things I know nothing about.

The window, I’m sure Poch would have loved to have signed someone if we could have found the right players, but we didn’t. I also think ‘doing the business early’ meant getting guys like Toby and Rose our early so we could get replacements in, but the World Cup and early window meant we couldn’t as we never got decent enough offers. So we had to work with what we had.

@galeforce put this really succinctly above but I would just say, follow this whole transfer window thing to it’s logical conclusion. Let’s say we sold Dembele, Rose and Toby, and signed (for arguments sake) Sessegnon, N’Dombele and De Ligt. It’s a good window right? But actually the net result is we’ve replaced experienced players with younger players. For this season, we’re not necessarily better off. Let’s say we sold no one and signed Grealish...is that a good window? Would they have sent that comment out at 5.01pm like they did as soon as the window closed if Grealish came in? What about if we signed 3 young French wingers from the Ligue 1? The point I’m trying to make is that signing players or not in one window is not competing in the transfer market, or the sign of a successful window. What you are trying to do is make obvious improvements and it really gets my back up when people say ‘was there really no player in the entire world that we could have signed?’ because when you actually consider who would be an obvious improvement, there just aren’t that many players. Then you layer on price, squad harmony, enough of a route for that new signing to play and develop, and the list gets smaller still.

As I said, I’m sure Poch would have loved to have signed players. I’m sure he would have loved to have sold players too. But the latter is heavily linked to the former. Given that we kept some seriously good players, and signed world class ones to long contracts, it’s a pretty good window. There’s a fair chance we sign De Ligt at some point when Toby goes, and there’s a fair chance we sign a quality central midfielder when Dembele goes, and a quality left back when Rose goes, and happily we will probably have the money to do it at the right time because we didn’t waste it in order to satisfy the trust’s desire to sign someone so they were happy in this particular window.

As I alluded to previously, they didn’t try and ask these questions in private (which again probably would have gotten them laughed out of the room or provoked some serious eye rolling had they done so), they released a statement almost literally the moment the transfer window closed. They couldn’t wait to get it out there. To question the transfer window was stupid in and of itself, the manner in which they did it just mind numbingly dumb.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Probably how you can be an even bigger beg than normal

Keep it coming, you're king of the internet

 

[Libero]

I’m one of those people that thinks things are fantastic at the club - or rather, I trust that the people in power know what they are doing, and are trying their absolute best. I look at our long term progress with them in post vs our previous leadership and that of other clubs, and I’m confident we have the right people in charge doing the right stuff. I certainly don’t want to question them on things I know nothing about.

The window, I’m sure Poch would have loved to have signed someone if we could have found the right players, but we didn’t. I also think ‘doing the business early’ meant getting guys like Toby and Rose our early so we could get replacements in, but the World Cup and early window meant we couldn’t as we never got decent enough offers. So we had to work with what we had.

@galeforce put this really succinctly above but I would just say, follow this whole transfer window thing to it’s logical conclusion. Let’s say we sold Dembele, Rose and Toby, and signed (for arguments sake) Sessegnon, N’Dombele and De Ligt. It’s a good window right? But actually the net result is we’ve replaced experienced players with younger players. For this season, we’re not necessarily better off. Let’s say we sold no one and signed Grealish...is that a good window? Would they have sent that comment out at 5.01pm like they did as soon as the window closed if Grealish came in? What about if we signed 3 young French wingers from the Ligue 1? The point I’m trying to make is that signing players or not in one window is not competing in the transfer market, or the sign of a successful window. What you are trying to do is make obvious improvements and it really gets my back up when people say ‘was there really no player in the entire world that we could have signed?’ because when you actually consider who would be an obvious improvement, there just aren’t that many players. Then you layer on price, squad harmony, enough of a route for that new signing to play and develop, and the list gets smaller still.

As I said, I’m sure Poch would have loved to have signed players. I’m sure he would have loved to have sold players too. But the latter is heavily linked to the former. Given that we kept some seriously good players, and signed world class ones to long contracts, it’s a pretty good window. There’s a fair chance we sign De Ligt at some point when Toby goes, and there’s a fair chance we sign a quality central midfielder when Dembele goes, and a quality left back when Rose goes, and happily we will probably have the money to do it at the right time because we didn’t waste it in order to satisfy the trust’s desire to sign someone so they were happy in this particular window.

As I alluded to previously, they didn’t try and ask these questions in private (which again probably would have gotten them laughed out of the room or provoked some serious eye rolling had they done so), they released a statement almost literally the moment the transfer window closed. They couldn’t wait to get it out there. To question the transfer window was stupid in and of itself, the manner in which they did it just mind numbingly dumb.

Ok, I take your view on how fantastic it is at the club but I don't agree with it. I don't use our previous owners as a barometer because quite frankly our current owners have had 17 years at the helm which is virtually a generation and they are working in an era that is unprecedented in terms of cash. Whilst I can congratulate them on a job well done in many aspects and don't doubt they are trying to do a good job, I can also look at the wider picture and not just regurgitate the good stuff. There have been failings as well and its equally correct to point that out. And this window is a failing imo. People can use the smokescreen of a 10 yr viewpoint on whether a transfer was a success, that's nonsense too. Quite often, certainly in our history, we will have been through 2-3 managers in that time so this longer term look to describe something as a success is not compatible with the game today when looking at a transfer. On that basis, do we wait another 8 years before declaring whether Janssen is a success?

The owners have done a great job to get us to this point but over the last 5-6 years they have needed to stick their neck out a little which wouldn't have sent us full Leeds if it didn't work but they haven't done so because they won't invest anything outside of the what the club makes and that will not cut it anymore. Anything they invest over and above they are gonna recoup in spades not just when they sell but if we perform to our very best and win the league as example. What we needed was 2-3 signings of sufficient quality, it wasn't looking for a Emirates Marketing Project-esque spend up but the fact is that the squad is not good enough depth wise to cover for when 2-3 players in the 11 have an off day.

As for the three players you suggested, I wouldn't have described that as a good window for the reasons you have said, we are buying potential which is wonderful and De Ligt and Sessegnon especially, should be very good players in 2-3 years time but that isn't what we need. We have been shortcutting with potential and wasting money on the likes of N'koudou and N'jie so I would have looked on the window as a good one if we had bought a mix of experience and potential or just experience. So flipping it slightly, if we had sold Rose, Alderweireld and Dembele but bought in Martial, Kovacic/Rabiot and De Ligt for example then now I'm saying that's a good window aside from losing Toby because its got youth but experience certainly in the first two and undoubted quality in all three and actually, with the transfers out taken into account, would that have been an extravagant net spend? Maybe a net spend of about £65/£70m for a team who have finished in the top 3 the last 3 years? Is that really a lot to ask? Would that even be really pushing the boat out? The club have made more money this last couple of years than ever before from gate receipts, merit awards and TV money. I get the Alderweireld/Rose deals would likely have triggered movement so them not happening will have had an effect on business but hold up any other business?

I hear everything you say about the ins being linked to the outs but that's poor planning too. The club is overloaded with players that need to be moved on but haven't been. Who is in charge of the transfers out? The chairman. He can't be praised when its good but get no criticism when its bad and the planning has been bad. The world cup, the early window finish etc...….they didn't come out of nowhere, we knew they were happening. Its like when people moan about Christmas coming up, it happens the same time every year, its not like it popped up out of the blue and you were unprepared. We should have been looking at ways of getting rid well before the seasons end if it was going to prevent us buying. I am sure we will buy players once those go but we shouldn't just be replacing, we should be enhancing the quality level in the squad, not selling quality and trying to replace that directly because they won't stay, we should be adding to them.

I really don't see how we get anywhere if the name of the game is to not waste money so we can replace a world class talent with a potential world class talent...…..just buy the potential to play with the world class. And on the wasting money, I agree, don't buy another N'jie just for the sake of it because £10m is a lot of money to our club but to say to me that we couldn't afford one of the 4 players, as an example, that I mentioned? I would like to know why given how much money is flying around to be honest and to that end, I don't have any issue with that question being asked by the trust or anyone else but no one likes hard questions because they ruffle feathers.

I don't know and you don't know if that was asked slightly prior to the window closing......absolutely no way of knowing tbh but Ive questioned the transfer window despite all these 'positives' that made it a 'good window' and I don't see how its window that isn't questionable quite frankly and to me, it isn't a good window overall and the most telling part about it is that the chairman probably knows it isn't a good window because he decided against his usual page on the website at the windows end.

Anyway, your thoughts are backed up by your rational thinking and your perception of the situation and my thoughts are backed up by my perceptions. You think it was a good window and I don't...…...You don't like the trust asking questions of the board or the manner they did it etc and I don't mind that they did it at all......its really that simple.

 

[Libero]

Keep it coming, you're king of the internet

I'm about 7k posts behind you so how does that work?