ENIC...

sausage said:

There's so much evidence all the time about what happens when teams buy that many players in one go. Why do people still seriously suggest this as some sort of good idea?

Click to expand...

Cause this is how you strengthen your team, esp when your signings appear to be poor or not good enough (Aurier janssen Nkoudou et al)

Why do you think 5-8 players per year is too much? What happens when teams buy 5 or 6 players per year?

Manchini (City): 21 player, avg 6 per year
Pellegrini (CIty): 18 players, avg 6 per year
Rodgers (Liverpool): 30 players, 8 per year
Klopp (Dortmund): 36 players, 5.2 per year
Guardiola (City): guess how many
Redknapp: 23 players, 6 per year

Not even mentioning Real Barca Chelsea (with Mourinho) PSG

NB I am counting free transfers as well

JayB said:

Unlike City, though, our inactivity came on the back of years of substandard recruitment. Between our first time qualifying for the CL under Poch and this past summer, this is who we brought in:

16/17 Season

• Janssen
• N'Koudou
• Sissoko
• Wanyama

17/18 Season

• Sanchez
• Foyth
• Aurier
• Llorente
• Moura

18/19 Season

• Fuck all

Not a single one of those signings has established himself as unquestionably a part of our best XI, at a time when players all throughout the team are underperforming and there's massive opportunity to stake a claim. The only possible exceptions to that would be Wanyama before he was crocked and Sissoko, but even he is only in the team for his workrate and if the whole squad were fit you wouldn't expect to see him week in, week out.

The stagnation had begun long before summer of 18. When you go three seasons without making any improvements you're naturally going to fall behind your rivals. Our recruitment has been disastrous for basically the entire time we've been CL regulars up until this past summer, and it's going to take a long time for us to get out of the hole we've dug for ourselves.

Click to expand...

? Times this. Our scouting has been shambolic for years. I know Poch is getting most of the blame for our current situation, and of course he is at fault. But our recruitment over the last three season has been shocking. And after two years of questionable incomings we then don't bring in anyone for a season. The fact Poch somehow managed to get us to a CL final under these circumstances is unfathomable. I think he will go on to win a lot of things in his career and manage a lot of big teams but I don't think getting to the CL final under these circumstances including the stadium etc will ever be topped.

skaz04nik said:

Cause this is how you strengthen your team, esp when your signings appear to be poor or not good enough (Aurier janssen Nkoudou et al)

Why do you think 5-8 players per year is too much? What happens when teams buy 5 or 6 players per year?

Click to expand...

"Per year" is not "in one go"

There are very few managers in recent years who have bought 6 first team players in one window (not Vorm-type free transfers) who've survived the following season.

sausage said:

"Per year" is not "in one go"

Click to expand...

I am really lost now. You've just pointed that major activity goes in summer window which means the majority of players brought per year by other teams (5 to 8 see benchmarks above) were brought in "one go" in summer window

sausage said:

There are very few managers in recent years who have bought 6 first team players

Click to expand...

At that time we did not need 6 FT players. We needed 2-3 FT players and 3 more with a potential. We would also have a year+ to see if those 3 are good enough

Back in summer 2018 & winter 2019 we probably had 3 burning positions: RB (instead of Aurier/Trips), CM (our bench was pretty young&thin) and DM (to replace Dembele who left in winter)
Skipp Foyth and KWP were all too young and had to be loaned somewhere not kept in squad

We also needed high potential CAM (as Eriksen was our only creative player for ages), solid mid aged CB (to cover Toby contract) and maybe high potential secondary striker as Janssen didn't work out

With all that done, we would go into summer 2019 with only 2 burning positions: LB and another CM. We'd also keep an opportunity to bring one more CAM (should Eriksen replacement be poor/ not work out) and DM to replace Wanyama (either young or mid aged, depending on success of Dembele replacement)

The only unexpected event would be Verts losing his form so quickly. And of course Lloris. But we would have 2 problems not 6 or 7 as we have now

From a financial, stadium etc point of view, ENIC/Levy have done very well. I'm just not convinced winning silverware is a top priority for them and so they won't go that extra mile to get us in a position imo. We get ITK on players etc but i'm at a point where I'd prefer and love to hear ITK on ENIC selling up to owners who genuinely want us regularly challenging for honours and have the capability to get us there.

ENIC have been here a long time now and we have 1 League cup to show for it. They've done a great job in getting the stadium done and having us on a sound financial footing but as a fan I'm tired of having our appetite whetted now and again but knowing deep inside not to regularly expect it or us using it as something we can build on and find ourselves consistently challenging. The season we were chasing Leicester felt like a one off and similarly last years CL final the same.

To counter the above somewhat, in fairness, this summer gone was one I felt Levy got the players Poch really wanted but that alone is not enough. We've got such weaknesses in the team/squad, that it was never going to be fixed in one window. A combination of not using the previous two windows and poor signings before that is costing us now.

I'm also not convinced Poch has pushed for or wanted a number of players that have arrived during his tenure. Balague is meant to be close to the Poch camp and when he said Poch 'did not push to sign Moura' it sets alarm bells ringing for me. So who did? Was it Levy looking at a player who looked like good value in today's market and one he could make a profit on? Makes me question what other players have we signed that Poch didn't ask/push for? Aurier? Why is Levy even pushing for players Poch maybe isn't particularly keen on?

Not blaming ENIC entirely for our current situation as I think Poch and the players definitely need to ask questions of themselves but for me ENIC have to be under very close scrutiny from now on. Stadium brings in more revenue now, which should give us a greater ceiling in terms of wages/fees. Yes, no doubt we still have debt to service but for me it's bit of a watershed moment in the next year or two will really see where ENIC want us to be on the pitch.

Joely said:

To counter the above somewhat, in fairness, this summer gone was one I felt Levy got the players Poch really wanted but that alone is not enough. We've got such weaknesses in the team/squad, that it was never going to be fixed in one window. A combination of not using the previous two windows and poor signings before that is costing us now.

I'm also not convinced Poch has pushed for or wanted a number of players that have arrived during his tenure. Balague is meant to be close to the Poch camp and when he said Poch 'did not push to sign Moura' it sets alarm bells ringing for me. So who did? Was it Levy looking at a player who looked like good value in today's market and one he could make a profit on? Makes me question what other players have we signed that Poch didn't ask/push for? Aurier? Why is Levy even pushing for players Poch maybe isn't particularly keen on?

Click to expand...

I'm not going to hunt for the quote, but I remember reading something from Daniel Levy to the effect that if it was left to Poch there would only be eleven players at the club. Couple that with JJ, Trix and other ITKs saying that Poch was only interested in signing a very few particular players, and it looks to me that whoever was behind the signing of these players has been trying to cover our asses for when the inevitable injuries happen, and also so that we actually have some players who are worth something in the transfer market, which is pretty important too, and not just a bunch of untried kids that no-one will pay good money for.

A lot of people complained bitterly about the summer we never signed anybody and cried about ENIC/Levy not backing Poch, but as far as I can tell, we tried for the players Poch wanted that summer, couldn't get them, and backed Poch by not signing anyone he didn't want. I was fine with that at the time, because at the time I honestly believed that Poch had a real plan for the future.

Sadly, I think that I was wrong, that Poch doesn't have a clue any more, if he ever did, and whoever was buying these players was looking after the club's future interests better than Poch has been.

The thing that really grates with me about Poch is his constant talk about being brave, when he shows absolutely no signs of it himself. I can see why the players might be fed up with him, if that is indeed the case, because what he says and what he does are two very different things.

If and when Poch leaves, we'll be grateful for those players that were brought in even if he didn't want them. They'll either get games, or they can be sold to finance incomings. If we didn't have them, we'd be left very short.

sausage said:

"Per year" is not "in one go"

There are very few managers in recent years who have bought 6 first team players in one window (not Vorm-type free transfers) who've survived the following season.

Click to expand...

Really not sure what you are not understanding from a great post.
Nobody is saying we should, or those other teams bought 6 first team players each season.
They buy on average 6 squad players, some will go straight into first team, some will never make much of an impact, some may even be loaned out, some will never make it and be shipped out in the following year or 2, but the squad is refreshed on average with 5 or 6 players per year.
We sort of did this ourselves, until last season, when we should have removed all players with 2 years left if they didn’t re-sign and replaced, as well as some “purchases to see if they were good enough”

MK Yid said:

Really not sure what you are not understanding from a great post.
Nobody is saying we should, or those other teams bought 6 first team players each season.

Click to expand...

The suggestion was that we *should* have bought up to 9 players in those two windows.
As PL clubs (especially top 6) very rarely, if at all, sign anyone in the January window, that would involve signing up to 9 in a summer window.

In recent history, clubs that attempt to buy 6 or more first team players in one window (6 being less than the 9 suggested) usually fall apart and end up managerless.

So yes, they did.


Also, people need to get over the idea that it's possible. Half decent players (not using retrospective) go for £30m+ now - FFP wouldn't allow a club to spend £360m+ in one window. If you think about what we'd need as a club, you're talking nearer £50m per player.

What we haven't been doing, in reality, is that thing that Poch is supposed to be good at but actually isn't - using the academy.

skaz04nik said:

DogsOfWar
I am a bit lost how could you distinguish football and business parts of an equation

your estimates seem too optimistic:
- Arsenal had only EUR 60m revenue increase after moving to a new stadium ( similar size) and I could still recall Wenger explaining ticket price increase
- ENIC's stadium project cost us significant squad under-investment.
We should have brought 6-9 new players (on average a good mgr brings 2.5-4 players per window) b/w Jan 18 and Feb 19, we bought one (Moura)

CL football next season is at heavy risk now (no UEFA prize money, issues with commercial revenue improvement etc etc) and, given current form, could end up without European football at all

Click to expand...

We had a slightly smaller stadium than them and now have a slightly bigger one than them.
Add in inflation and a stadium to maximise income from concessions and tours etc and I don't think it's overly optimistic to believe it will be more than the 50-60 million you mentioned.

As for investment in the squad we had a world record profit two seasons ago. I would be very surprised if there hadn't been money available for transfers rather than paying corporate tax on it all.
All the background talk is that Poch had certain targets which, if he couldn't get he didn't want anyone else, makes sense when the accounts tell us there was plenty of money in the club.
And that money was profit, ie, after outgoings so wasn't spent on the stadium.

Enic have put us in a fantastic position financially and it's down to the footballing part of the business (Poch, the academy, scouts) to deliver that on the pitch.

And, yes, Enic are responsible for appointing those football people which is the only criticism, in my opinion, that can be aimed at them.

sausage said:

The suggestion was that we *should* have bought up to 9 players in those two windows.
As PL clubs (especially top 6) very rarely, if at all, sign anyone in the January window, that would involve signing up to 9 in a summer window.

In recent history, clubs that attempt to buy 6 or more first team players in one window (6 being less than the 9 suggested) usually fall apart and end up managerless.

So yes, they did.


Also, people need to get over the idea that it's possible. Half decent players (not using retrospective) go for £30m+ now - FFP wouldn't allow a club to spend £360m+ in one window. If you think about what we'd need as a club, you're talking nearer £50m per player.

What we haven't been doing, in reality, is that thing that Poch is supposed to be good at but actually isn't - using the academy.

Click to expand...

Exactly this, and this is one of the main reasons I think we're in big trouble. Unlike our rivals, we have absolutely nobody (bar Parrott, and even he is realistically 2 or 3 years away) ready to come into the team to supplement big signings. Meaning to fill the gaps we need, with sufficient quality we're looking at 30/40m signings in 4 or 5 positions at least, must to keep the same level.

Arsenal have an array of talent about to break through, Chelsea are beginning to reap the rewards of the youth (albeit forced upon), City have a gem in Foden, Liverpool have lots of capable youth, even united have some teenagers getting game time.

This painful rebuild is not only going to be painful in terms of performances on the pitch, but will need to be painful in the pockets of ENIC to succeed...

'Par' for Spurs is finishing 5th or 6th in the league, roughly speaking over the last 20 odd years.

That's if you take into account finances and other resources.

ENIC struggled to achieve this in the first 4 or 5 seasons, but then consistently delivered on this, having a few hiccups along the way, but also exceeding the 'par' in the last 4 seasons.

They've also created a world class infrastructure off the pitch during this time, whilst making us financially healthy.

So far, so good.

However, silverware hasn't been forthcoming, they've had a tendency to be a bit erratic in their football personnel hirings and they've never really 'gone for it' in the transfer market when a couple of big signings would have won us a title or two.

I think overall, they're just middle of the road, sensible business men, who are competent at their jobs, but who are risk adverse and aren't desperately driven for on field success. When you put these things together, they're quite unusual in the footballing world, where there are so many bad financial types running clubs (even Man Utd!!), generous sugar-daddies or long standing 'family' owners.

ENIC have had quite long enough. Thanks for the stadium but please jog on now.

Unfortunately I just don’t see us as an attractive proposition at all. Way overpriced vs brand/success/current potential.

It’s a massive shame, we’re just stuck in limbo.

Levy has done good but you have to take your chances and he has passed up a multitude wrt building a team capable of winning trophies.

DogsOfWar

DogsOfWar said:

Add in inflation and a stadium to maximise income from concessions and tours etc and I don't think it's overly optimistic to believe it will be more than the 50-60 million you mentioned

Click to expand...

you need to deduct prize money from UEFA CL, add'l PL money which won't come from top4-5 finish etc

DogsOfWar said:

And that money was profit, ie, after outgoings so wasn't spent on the stadium.

Click to expand...

I would assume stadium money goes through cash flow not P&L, so profit doesn't tell us anything
We need to rely on facts - the projects cost is 1.2 bn, current debt/bonds are ~650 mln, so 550 mln were financed by accumulated profits of the club.

DogsOfWar said:

All the background talk is that Poch had certain targets which, if he couldn't get he didn't want anyone else, makes sense when the accounts tell us there was plenty of money in the club

Click to expand...

I have head many versions, citing our chairman running n the market and offering silly prices for good players and putting insane price tags on our players etc
From common logic, Poch as a manager should have used ANY opportunity to get a good player, whereas Levy's motivation has been exactly the opposite (debt reduction). Maybe players offered by Levy were crap; if that's the case I am fully with Poch - we don't need another deadwood in the squad

DogsOfWar said:

And, yes, Enic are responsible for appointing those football people which is the only criticism, in my opinion, that can be aimed at them

Click to expand...

you cannot distinguish transfers from footballing part. In fact transfers and money invested into squad define much more than manager. Just look at Pellegrini's win/lose record in City/ Real vs West Ham
I would accept your logic should ENIC stay away from business except for managerial appointments. In fact Levy is actively involved in player selection, pricing, negotiations and maybe even final decisions.
From business analogy Poch is not CEO but COO as he has limited (if any) influence on procurement and large CAPEX

sausage

sausage said:

Also, people need to get over the idea that it's possible.

Click to expand...

I have shown you stats with top clubs bringing 6 to 8 players per year on average. Earlier I have also showed many examples of top PL clubs bringing good players in winter
Second I talked 6 to 9 players in THREE windows (Win 18, Sum 18, Win 19)

On FFP -
1. It accounts for sales not only incomings
2. Your estimated net spend per player has nothing to do with reality. It's way above ANY comparables
Even Pep at City and Klopp at Liverpool had an average gross spend of EUR 29 mln per player.
3. FYI City had a NET spend of EUR 230 mln in 2017. And 180 mln a year before

sausage said:

What we haven't been doing, in reality, is that thing that Poch is supposed to be good at but actually isn't - using the academy.

Click to expand...

A top club has a squad size of 24-25 players, of which ~70% (60 to 80%) are "playing abroad", meaning avg 7-8 are locals (of which not all are academy products). Academy is a nice support but no way it could be a core driver of success

In our current team we have 3 who are pure homegrown and 2 more who were brought in being very young, which is not much different from other top clubs

stevenurse said:

Exactly this, and this is one of the main reasons I think we're in big trouble. Unlike our rivals, we have absolutely nobody (bar Parrott, and even he is realistically 2 or 3 years away) ready to come into the team to supplement big signings. Meaning to fill the gaps we need, with sufficient quality we're looking at 30/40m signings in 4 or 5 positions at least, must to keep the same level.

Arsenal have an array of talent about to break through, Chelsea are beginning to reap the rewards of the youth (albeit forced upon), City have a gem in Foden, Liverpool have lots of capable youth, even united have some teenagers getting game time.

This painful rebuild is not only going to be painful in terms of performances on the pitch, but will need to be painful in the pockets of ENIC to succeed...

Click to expand...

I think Chelsea's appointment of Lampard and their transfer ban will be their making. He's using their academy and giving chances and, for the most part, the players (Abraham included) are taking them.

We used to be like that, but aren't any more, which is a shame. We spent years waiting for Edwards to be old enough, then years waiting for him to be 'ready', and we only saw 20 mins of him in a cup game. I seriously doubt Kane would have had a kick for us if we was in our academy now.

It's a big shame because that's where a lot of investment has gone (facilities and infrastructure).

I can’t believe people are still buying this “players aren’t good enough” line. It’s not true. Yeah we should of made signings but half the squad are coming into their prime footballing years.

A change of manager is what is needed not changing the whole squad. Then we will be told they need a year to gel. It’s nonsense.

skaz04nik said:

sausage

I have shown you stats with top clubs bringing 6 to 8 players per year on average. Earlier I have also showed many examples of top PL clubs bringing good players in winter

Click to expand...

Ok, we'll have a look:

Manchini (City): 21 player, avg 6 per year sacked
Pellegrini (CIty): 18 players, avg 6 per year sacked
Rodgers (Liverpool): 30 players, 8 per year sacked, won nothing
Klopp (Dortmund): 36 players, 5.2 per year resigned after team crumbled
Guardiola (City): guess how many answer below
Redknapp: 23 players, 6 per year sacked, won nothing

For the record, Guardiola has signed 16 players for City who can be considered first team (possibly less) since August 2016, so that's an average of 2 (for the sake of a close decimal) per Transfer Window (he's been there for 7 windows).

It's irrelevant counting the young players that go through the factories of these clubs, as they never see the first team and are sent off (for example) to the City Group's other clubs.



Every time a club goes on a spree and buys a several players, pundits and fans expect big things - but they end up in relegation form (if not down). The key is to add one or two in where you need them.

spursfan77 said:

I can’t believe people are still buying this “players aren’t good enough” line. It’s not true. Yeah we should of made signings but half the squad are coming into their prime footballing years.

A change of manager is what is needed not changing the whole squad. Then we will be told they need a year to gel. It’s nonsense.

Click to expand...

Well, 6 months to "catch up on fitness" then a season of "integration", and then apparently the following season they will be stale and we'll start again.

The thing that made Poch's team, which I though he and everyone cracked onto but it seems not, was that he brought through young players who'd been at the club and would bleed for it. As that's been watered down, we've been terrible. I reckon someone else would come in, inject that back into the team through a few academy lads, and then we'll be rocking again.

We splurged the Bale money
on the Magnificent 7.
Only Eriksen and Lamela survived
more than a couple or 3 years
and, altogether now,
'We won nothing.

spursfan77 said:

I can’t believe people are still buying this “players aren’t good enough” line. It’s not true. Yeah we should of made signings but half the squad are coming into their prime footballing years.

A change of manager is what is needed not changing the whole squad. Then we will be told they need a year to gel. It’s nonsense.

Click to expand...

I don’t think many are saying they aren’t good enough. What they see is a group of players that have downed tools

There are a number of reasons for this, one of which we keep reading. 'Poch works us too hard'

IMO he wasn’t backed re getting rid of players due to contracts etc and now the dressing room is ruling the roost