• 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

Daniel Levy - Chairman

Robspur12 said:
Nothing is ever so black and white even though you love to create a dichotomy between managers and the board.

Do you remember the season before Leicester's win, Poch wanted a ball winner and someone to move the ball quickly from defence to attack? He wanted Schneiderlin but instead we signed stambouli. You might also remember that in the preseason before Leicester's win, Poch wanted striker cover for Kane. He asked for Berahino, he got ...no one. So going into that season he took on a Leicester team that had no European committments with no proper cover for Dembele or Kane - 2 key players. Add to this requiring a threadbare squad to play X2 a week. While Leicester only played once.

Now you cannot say this was entirely the fault of those responsible for signings but to say they are completely blameless while the manager shoulders the lot is ridiculous imho.
Click to expand...

You are right, nothing is ever black and white .. however, repeatedly under Poch (and Harry) the "underinvested in" team was within 1 or 2 games of glory and failed to turn up

- I find that really hard to blame on the club/board/Levy, I watched those fudging games, bad selections, tactics, wrong mentality, late subs .. whatever, things I put on the manager.
- The one game I think was a genuine exception (@DubaiSpur called out and I agree) was the 2017 game when Chelsea had 3 game changing subs on the bench including fudging Hazard.
- Leicester won that title because we fudged ourselves mentally at Chelsea, and weren't motivated enough in a couple of smaller games .. it was there for the taking, and along with the CL final it's two huge misses ...

p.s. Berahino would not have helped us ...
 
Raziel said:
The one game I think was a genuine exception (@DubaiSpur called out and I agree) was the 2017 game when Chelsea had 3 game changing subs on the bench including fudging Hazard.
Click to expand...

We're not still going on about this?

If its a tactical masterstroke to not select your best players so they can be subs, then perhaps Kane Dele and Eriksen should have sat out that day so we should have looked strong as well when bringing them on.:rolleyes:
 
Raziel said:
You are right, nothing is ever black and white .. however, repeatedly under Poch (and Harry) the "underinvested in" team was within 1 or 2 games of glory and failed to turn up

- I find that really hard to blame on the club/board/Levy, I watched those fudging games, bad selections, tactics, wrong meteorology, late subs .. whatever, things I put on the manager.
- The one game I think was a genuine exception (@DubaiSpur called out and I agree) was the 2017 game when Chelsea had 3 game changing subs on the bench including fudging Hazard.
- Leicester won that title because we fudged ourselves mentally at Chelsea, and weren't motivated enough in a couple of smaller games .. it was there for the taking, and along with the CL final it's two huge misses ...

p.s. Berahino would not have helped us ...
Click to expand...
Failed to turn up? Or was physically spent due to having a smaller squad of quality compared to our peers and thus at a big disadvantage in the games that matter late in the season?

Also you do realise that Leicester would've won the league even if we'd won all 4 of our last games right?
 
Finney Is Back said:
Failed to turn up? Or was physically spent due to having a smaller squad of quality compared to our peers and thus at a big disadvantage in the games that matter late in the season?

Also you do realise that Leicester would've won the league even if we'd won all 4 of our last games right?
Click to expand...

You honestly would say we played brick in the CL final because the team was tired?
 
Finney Is Back said:
Isn't it more to do with the brick that we have in the squad compared to them?
Click to expand...

Bishop said:
Exactly this, we never had the key players of quality beyond the first 13. Never any additional options. now that appears to be differing.
Click to expand...

I was talking about that one particular game (hence quoting that part of raziels message) , it's a very poor example to use when moaning about strength in depth.

Other games, matches, occasions you may well have a point.
 
I don't know if you remember but we played a full strength side that day versus a first 11 from Chelsea but with some key players on the bench.

Their side was matching ours until they brought on the subs which sealed the deal. It ties into what was said about strength in depth both in terms of options and tiredness.

It was that depth that allowed them to rest Cesc, Hazard and Costa and only bring them on to turn the tide. We brought on Janssen, Nkoudou and Sissoko in comparison. [emoji2367]
 
Bishop said:
I don't know if you remember but we played a full strength side that day versus a first 11 from Chelsea but with some key players on the bench.

Their side was matching ours until they bought on the subs which sealed the deal. It ties into what was said about strength in depth both in terms of options and tiredness.

It was that depth that allowed them to rest Cesc, Hazard and Costa and only bring them on to turn the tide. We bought on Janssen, Nkoudou and Sissoko in comparison. [emoji2367]
Click to expand...

We actually brought on Nkoudou and Walker but the other options were Wimmer, Sissoko, Janssen, Davies and Lopez so your point still stands. It says much that of our subs that day, even @scaramanga would have to rate Sissoko in the top 2-3 of the 7.
 
Bishop said:
We've never run at the same percentage as others whether that be wages as a percentage of turnover or transfer fees as percentage of turnover. We have always been one of the most stringent clubs when it comes to feeling comfortable to spend.

I don't believe a larger turnover will change Levy's attitude in that respect, none of his behaviour up to this times supports that notion.
Click to expand...

See table below, which shows average 5 year net spend on transfer fees. E.g. in the 18-19 row, that shows average net spend across seasons 14/15 to 18/19. The bottom line is when Levy took over, the top line is when the stadium was announced. Think the table shows pretty clearly how our spending has changed since the stadium build. I.e. Before the announcement we were outspending Arsenal, and spending similar to Liverpool and Man U - despite far lower revenues.

upload_2020-8-29_8-54-39.png

And then the first season after the stadium was completed (i.e. 19/20), our net spend shot up to more than £100m.

Think this is all pretty strong evidence that Levy's stringent spending is driven by the stadium build.

Edit: in fact, if you look at the 10/11 row, it shows that the only team with a higher net spend than us from 6/7 to 10/11 was Emirates Marketing Project - we spent more (net) than Chelsea, Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal over that period.
 
Last edited:
elltrev said:
See table below, which shows average 5 year net spend on transfer fees. E.g. in the 18-19 row, that shows average net spend across seasons 14/15 to 18/19. The bottom line is when Levy took over, the top line is when the stadium was announced. Think the table shows pretty clearly how our spending has changed since the stadium build. I.e. Before the announcement we were outspending Arsenal, and spending similar to Liverpool and Man U - despite far lower revenues.

View attachment 9237

And then the first season after the stadium was completed (i.e. 19/20), our net spend shot up to more than £100m.

Think this is all pretty strong evidence that Levy's stringent spending is driven by the stadium build.
Click to expand...
Think that table shows....

If spend counted for everything City Chelsea Utd should win everything.

Arsenal's big increase recently means they are gambling massively on getting in the CL pronto.

Looking at the spend levels of Liverpool and similarly us (when Poch was here) the improvement could simply be down to having a bloody good manager?.
 
elltrev said:
See table below, which shows average 5 year net spend on transfer fees. E.g. in the 18-19 row, that shows average net spend across seasons 14/15 to 18/19. The bottom line is when Levy took over, the top line is when the stadium was announced. Think the table shows pretty clearly how our spending has changed since the stadium build. I.e. Before the announcement we were outspending Arsenal, and spending similar to Liverpool and Man U - despite far lower revenues.

View attachment 9237

And then the first season after the stadium was completed (i.e. 19/20), our net spend shot up to more than £100m.

Think this is all pretty strong evidence that Levy's stringent spending is driven by the stadium build.

Edit: in fact, if you look at the 10/11 row, it shows that the only team with a higher net spend than us from 6/7 to 10/11 was Emirates Marketing Project - we spent more (net) than Chelsea, Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal over that period.
Click to expand...
Bearing in mind that City did not join the lottery winners club until 08/09, the table also shows up that Arse were consistently the lowest spenders in the period leading up to the opening of their new stadium in October 2006 and for a whole bunch of seasons thereafter. Between 2005/06 and 2012/13 they also failed to win a single major trophy.

Coincidence? You decide.
 
elltrev said:
See table below, which shows average 5 year net spend on transfer fees. E.g. in the 18-19 row, that shows average net spend across seasons 14/15 to 18/19. The bottom line is when Levy took over, the top line is when the stadium was announced. Think the table shows pretty clearly how our spending has changed since the stadium build. I.e. Before the announcement we were outspending Arsenal, and spending similar to Liverpool and Man U - despite far lower revenues.

View attachment 9237

And then the first season after the stadium was completed (i.e. 19/20), our net spend shot up to more than £100m.

Think this is all pretty strong evidence that Levy's stringent spending is driven by the stadium build.

Edit: in fact, if you look at the 10/11 row, it shows that the only team with a higher net spend than us from 6/7 to 10/11 was Emirates Marketing Project - we spent more (net) than Chelsea, Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal over that period.
Click to expand...
That table also highlights the amazing job Poch did, given the financial disadvantage relative to his rivals.
 
elltrev said:
See table below, which shows average 5 year net spend on transfer fees. E.g. in the 18-19 row, that shows average net spend across seasons 14/15 to 18/19. The bottom line is when Levy took over, the top line is when the stadium was announced. Think the table shows pretty clearly how our spending has changed since the stadium build. I.e. Before the announcement we were outspending Arsenal, and spending similar to Liverpool and Man U - despite far lower revenues.

View attachment 9237

And then the first season after the stadium was completed (i.e. 19/20), our net spend shot up to more than £100m.

Think this is all pretty strong evidence that Levy's stringent spending is driven by the stadium build.

Edit: in fact, if you look at the 10/11 row, it shows that the only team with a higher net spend than us from 6/7 to 10/11 was Emirates Marketing Project - we spent more (net) than Chelsea, Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal over that period.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected, but do you have the numbers for teams such Aston Villa who had splurge and earlier Saudi Sportswashing Machine?
 
Robspur12 said:
That table also highlights the amazing job Poch did, given the financial disadvantage relative to his rivals.
Click to expand...

We had a period with a very high success rate with our signings combined with the right coach at the right time, just like Liverpool are seeing now.
 
Raziel said:
Leicester is a fluke and to bring it up is just being cheeky mate, you know it (it will be a fudging trivia question in 10 years). and Leicester won because Poch's side imploded under pressure (brick show at Bridge and the draw/loss before), stretch to blame that on ENIC.

Pool is a very complicated story, people forget they were an established side competing for title and in CL for a long time, they dropped and we caught them for a number of years and then via a bunch of owner chaos (buyouts fudging previous owner with debt) , plus a few huge sales (and some new owner investment) that they took the money and re-invested were able to put themselves back where they have spent the majority of the last few decades. Can waste the time and do the numbers, but reality is we over a 20 year period have not been in Pool's income bracket (they and United truly have a global fanbase). And Pool's success this year came down to both Chelsea (same number of losses in season as us) and City underperforming .. and the CL was us fudging choking harder than a serial choker (Klopp had failed in 6 or 7 finals before that).
Click to expand...

Another handy rewriting of the truth. Poch was exceeding progress by even being in that race, and what you call a "brick-show at the Bridge" was the game which proved to this squad that they could fight. If you cannot see how that one game was basically a rewrite of our character and attitude, then I have to question if you were paying attention to the realities or what the press told you.

As for the tired typical CL choke comments, you really don't think an extra quality squad player or two would not have made the difference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back