• 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

ENIC

Grays_1890 said:
And the fact that everyone seems to believe the way forward is huge player spend, twinned with the fact only one club can win the league there is a huge element that owners won't stick around when its not their time. Liverpool owners a case in example, were absolutely all over it when they were winning stuff and now they don't have the stomach and probably the inclination to plough money into a black hole to do it again and who can blame them TBH

Probably all clubs bar 2/3 up for sales in the prem unofficially and there is not this glut of owners ready to come in like people think
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also a good example of how difficult it is to maintain a high hit rate in the transfer market.

Liverpool was the shining example of great recruitment, not without reason either, they really did make some fantastic signings at various costs too. No guarantee of continuing success. Not to say those signings won't come good or that Liverpool won't bounce back. But periods of decline are really difficult to avoid.

Leicester too. Such a well run club, just look at that transfer business. Oh, they're fighting relegation.
 
braineclipse said:
Agreed. Also a good example of how difficult it is to maintain a high hit rate in the transfer market.

Liverpool was the shining example of great recruitment, not without reason either, they really did make some fantastic signings at various costs too. No guarantee of continuing success. Not to say those signings won't come good or that Liverpool won't bounce back. But periods of decline are really difficult to avoid.

Leicester too. Such a well run club, just look at that transfer business. Oh, they're fighting relegation.
Click to expand...
Liverpool have now also lost Michael Edwards. He was a key data man involved in their targeting of undervalued players across Europe. We had him once also and like them, the quality of our incomings dropped in the immediate aftermath of him leaving.

It seems like it's difficult to keep the high level of return if you don't keep the key men involved in that process. At Spurs in the last 15 years we've had Levy, Edwards, Hitchen, Paul Mitchell, Pleat, Commoli, Baldini and Redknapp all involved in the recruitment process at various times. It's not surprising the results have been so inconsistent.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
 
Bishop said:
Liverpool have now also lost Michael Edwards. He was a key data man involved in their targeting of undervalued players across Europe. We had him once also and like them, the quality of our incomings dropped in the immediate aftermath of him leaving.

It seems like it's difficult to keep the high level of return if you don't keep the key men involved in that process. At Spurs in the last 15 years we've had Levy, Edwards, Hitchen, Paul Mitchell, Pleat, Commoli, Baldini and Redknapp all involved in the recruitment process at various times. It's not surprising the results have been so inconsistent.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...
braineclipse said:
Agreed. Also a good example of how difficult it is to maintain a high hit rate in the transfer market.

Liverpool was the shining example of great recruitment, not without reason either, they really did make some fantastic signings at various costs too. No guarantee of continuing success. Not to say those signings won't come good or that Liverpool won't bounce back. But periods of decline are really difficult to avoid.

Leicester too. Such a well run club, just look at that transfer business. Oh, they're fighting relegation.
Click to expand...

Or is it just a case of transfers will always have some percentage of misses? and we simply don't remember the brick ones, especially when it's not our club?

I'd argue transfers across better run teams (obviously some clubs are an absolute shambles, yes Everton), the odds are probably similar. The difference is like anything with odds, it's not ever going to be (if we said 2:3 or 1:3) good, good, bad, good, good, bad, etc. In some cases you just get 2 or 3 windows were it works out in a row, makes a big lift on the team and that can support you for a couple of years. Then you get a revert to mean and the same great run club doesn't look so hot anymore? who wants to bet on Brighton in 2 years?
 
Raziel said:
Or is it just a case of transfers will always have some percentage of misses? and we simply don't remember the brick ones, especially when it's not our club?

I'd argue transfers across better run teams (obviously some clubs are an absolute shambles, yes Everton), the odds are probably similar. The difference is like anything with odds, it's not ever going to be (if we said 2:3 or 1:3) good, good, bad, good, good, bad, etc. In some cases you just get 2 or 3 windows were it works out in a row, makes a big lift on the team and that can support you for a couple of years. Then you get a revert to mean and the same great run club doesn't look so hot anymore? who wants to bet on Brighton in 2 years?
Click to expand...

I have always said, the difference between the big clubs and everyone else is not how much they spend to guarantee the quality, its their ability to go again to purchase another to replace the flops. If you went through the last 10 years of Chelsea, City and United and their signings I would guarantee I could pull out double the flops then the successes.

Unfortunately in the last 5 years, if we made a signing that did not hit we have to stick with them or have, in the past, had to wait for them to move on till we replace.

But the idea other clubs don't make mistakes would be a lie, money does not guarantee success
 
Raziel said:
Or is it just a case of transfers will always have some percentage of misses? and we simply don't remember the brick ones, especially when it's not our club?

I'd argue transfers across better run teams (obviously some clubs are an absolute shambles, yes Everton), the odds are probably similar. The difference is like anything with odds, it's not ever going to be (if we said 2:3 or 1:3) good, good, bad, good, good, bad, etc. In some cases you just get 2 or 3 windows were it works out in a row, makes a big lift on the team and that can support you for a couple of years. Then you get a revert to mean and the same great run club doesn't look so hot anymore? who wants to bet on Brighton in 2 years?
Click to expand...

Some percentage of misses most definitely, and there's certainly going to be variance. Variance, small sample sizes...

But I also think there's skill and ability in this, including differences between well run clubs at different times. But the differences between two different currently well run clubs is probably fairly small?

Grays_1890 said:
I have always said, the difference between the big clubs and everyone else is not how much they spend to guarantee the quality, its their ability to go again to purchase another to replace the flops. If you went through the last 10 years of Chelsea, City and United and their signings I would guarantee I could pull out double the flops then the successes.

Unfortunately in the last 5 years, if we made a signing that did not hit we have to stick with them or have, in the past, had to wait for them to move on till we replace.

But the idea other clubs don't make mistakes would be a lie, money does not guarantee success
Click to expand...

Absolutely that's a huge difference. The richest clubs have way less of a negative impact after a poor signing.
 
Grays_1890 said:
I have always said, the difference between the big clubs and everyone else is not how much they spend to guarantee the quality, its their ability to go again to purchase another to replace the flops. If you went through the last 10 years of Chelsea, City and United and their signings I would guarantee I could pull out double the flops then the successes.

Unfortunately in the last 5 years, if we made a signing that did not hit we have to stick with them or have, in the past, had to wait for them to move on till we replace.

But the idea other clubs don't make mistakes would be a lie, money does not guarantee success
Click to expand...
City spent about a billion churning through FBs alone.
 
With Chelsea they scoop loads of talent with their excessive spending power and hope that 1 or 2 turn out be very good/top players. Most other clubs do not have that luxury.
 
I see the brainboxes are out on twitter again complaining that we’ve given up the stadium on 3 June to Beyoncé when it should be kept free in case we get to the FA Cup Final so that the game can be screened in the stadium. Another example of Levy not putting football first.
So yes give up how many millions that will go back into the club on the off chance we might get to a final in that date. Clever.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I see the brainboxes are out on twitter again complaining that we’ve given up the stadium on 3 June to Beyoncé when it should be kept free in case we get to the FA Cup Final so that the game can be screened in the stadium. Another example of Levy not putting football first.
So yes give up how many millions that will go back into the club on the off chance we might get to a final in that date. Clever.
Click to expand...

They're upset because they think we could win the fa cup? Makes sense.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I see the brainboxes are out on twitter again complaining that we’ve given up the stadium on 3 June to Beyoncé when it should be kept free in case we get to the FA Cup Final so that the game can be screened in the stadium. Another example of Levy not putting football first.
So yes give up how many millions that will go back into the club on the off chance we might get to a final in that date. Clever.
Click to expand...

Bunch of absolute jokers

Have they not heard of the pub?

Also is the basis of their main complaints that we don't make finals and now they are complaining about something that rests on us making finals?

Honestly our support base is full of macarons like this, clout chasing monkeys

Just had a read "Shows where the clubs priorities are" hahah FFS The takes are ridiculous, clubs probably making 20m+ over the 4/5 nights of the concerts, are we suppose to not take that opportunity on the basis that we might make the final which is far from a given.
 
Last edited:
Lilbaz said:
Not just football. Not just the uk. A general frustration and anger, people just want to lash out.
Click to expand...

Exactly that, spoke to police liaison when working at Arsenal one game and he said exactly that about the Super League protests, a chance for people to get together and go OTT about an issue they clearly care about but also see as an opportunity to lash out and go over the top with. Also about comradery, people feel a warmth in person or online when their views are validated by others, becomes mob mentality.

Funnily was speaking to this bloke and he laid it out exactly how it happens, loads of middle aged men get together, all howl at moon, lasts 30 mins to 45 mins and straight into pub for pints and gear like its a match day, for people its almost an opportunity to recreate highs that they experience on other occasions and he was spot on, its how 90% of these things go
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back