FORMER Manager Watch: Nuno Espírito Santo

[THE SPURSBOY]

Nuno did not make any changes until we were 2-0 down. The game was lost in the first 12 minutes of the 2nd half, before the bench came into play.

yes I agree, and also for all the great attacking endeavour I can't remember any chances created?

 

[ShelfWatcher]

Needs to go three at the back, starting at Wolves

 

[DEFchenkOE]

What worries me is the decisions he is making that mere couch managers scratch their head at. The Crystal Palace 11 and tactics, the stubborn perseverance with it when it patently was failing, the thought that we could sustain the high energy press against Chelsea but had no plan for when we inevitably ran out of gas. The first half was encouraging but feel he was too passive in the second half and just let things unfold as Chelsea changed up at half time.

Yes, based on the evidence so far I cannot see Nuno making the tactical change that Tuchel made at half time yesterday while the game was still level. Even though his side were on the up in the last 15-20 mins of the first half. He still said, "I'm going to take off an attack minded midfielder for a more defensive one and regain superiority in midfield." Now of course it helps when that player you can bring on is Kante, but it's a sign of a coach that is not just thinking of the result but the actual performance of the team. We could have scored a lucky goal against Palace in the first half last week and Nuno should still have made changes at ht due to how poor we were. Yet he did nothing and we all know how that ended.

Yesterday, Nuno had no answer to counteract Chelsea changing from 3421 to 352. It was just a little tweak but enough to totally dominate us and we could barely get out of our half.

 

[spids]

Unfortunately Stu, our chairman doesn't provide the sixth highest 'budget'. He provides the lowest.

Yeah, let's not let the truth get in the way fo a good debate....

 

[mrlilywhite]

Yeah they do have the luxury of oil money good for them but they have that mentality running through the club, their chairman sets the tone you can't say the same about ours.

It's a fair point and a very valid one imo - they have the ingredients right and we have neither and until we change our mindset and/or ENIC decide to sell, then we'll remain, at the very most in the same situation, at the very least? I'd rather not think about that tbh.

 

[spids]

yes I agree, and also for all the great attacking endeavour I can't remember any chances created?

Son had a 1 on 1 where the pass was slightly behind him, and after a difficult first touch Kepa came out quickly (and Alonso pulled Son back by the shoulder which could have been a harsh penalty). And Reguilon got played in but totally fluffed the cross which would have given Lo Celso a tap in. Closest we got. Kane was pretty anonymous and easily crowded out.

 

[Tucker]

Yeah they do have the luxury of oil money good for them but they have that mentality running through the club, their chairman sets the tone you can't say the same about ours.

It’s easy to install a winning mentality when you’re using the financial doping cheat code.

 

[wadewill]

I'm sitting here this morning thinking "we would be better off with Jose in charge" - that's how bad it is

 

[Gassin's finest]

Yeah they do have the luxury of oil money good for them but they have that mentality running through the club, their chairman sets the tone you can't say the same about ours.

Their Chairman is literally a Russian gangster on the run in Israel... I'm quite glad we can't say that about ours

 

[Gassin's finest]

I'm sitting here this morning thinking "we would be better off with Jose in charge" - that's how bad it is

Don't be silly now.

 

[shelfboy68]

It’s easy to install a winning mentality when you’re using the financial doping cheat code.

To be fair they were winning stuff before Roman took over he just made them better.
As for cheating or cheat codes if it's wrong to cheat as we have all been taught as kids then why hasn't the football authorities banned them or the government investigate.
Could it be that they simply spend more money than us because yeah they have an owner like that and they don't want to be a mid table club like us.
Winning CL and EPL titles probably brings them more money than we can make in our expensive stadium that houses a vastly inferior product.

 

[shelfboy68]

Their Chairman is literally a Russian gangster on the run in Israel... I'm quite glad we can't say that about ours

Lol he will probably be on the run down the A406 from angry spurs fans soon not going to take too much of this.

 

[Tucker]

To be fair they were winning stuff before Roman took over he just made them better.
As for cheating or cheat codes if it's wrong to cheat as we have all been taught as kids then why hasn't the football authorities banned them or the government investigate.
Could it be that they simply spend more money than us because yeah they have an owner like that and they don't want to be a mid table club like us.
Winning CL and EPL titles probably brings them more money than we can make in our expensive stadium that houses a vastly inferior product.

Was only a couple of seasons ago that Chelsea had a transfer ban. So the authorities have punished them. They’ve also tried to punish City.

 

[rez9000]

Yeah, let's not let the truth get in the way fo a good debate....

View attachment 96899

That's not how it works.

It's not about the absolute spend - it's about the proportion of turnover used on player staff.

The cost of buying a player - you know the shit you see like 'Man City have bought Jack Grealish for £100m' is complete toilet water.

First off - the cost of purchasing a player is not, as I've said repeatedly ever like this:

"1st August - Player Purchase - Jack Grealish - £100,000,000"

The cost of purchasing a player is spread over the length of the player's contract. It's called amortisation.

Plus that spread-out cost when it appears on a club's balance sheet also includes the player's wages.

So, Grealish has a six-year, £200,000 p/w contract with Man City. His expense will therefore be noted more along the lines of:

"2021-22: £27,066,666
"2022-23: £27,066,666
"2023-24: £27,066,666..." etc, etc.

Although the figures will reduce over time because the balance sheet value of the asset goes down - so, they may record it as £30m, the first year, £28m the second year, etc.

Man City and no club anywhere transfers over £100,000,000 or £40,000,000 or even £100,000 in one chunk. The 'spend' you've just posted is complete and utter bullshit. That's not me saying you did that deliberately - it's what we've been told by the likes of Sky and the BBC with their 'this is how much clubs spent this transfer window' bollocks. But the reality of transfers and football finance in general completely different to that narrative. It simply doesn't work that way.

What we do know is how much of a club's turnover is spent on paying for playing staff. For those figures, as a proportion of our turnover, we are rock bottom. In the last season where there are figures available, we spent 46% of our turnover on playing staff. That's the lowest in the Premier League. Sheffield United, in their first season, spent 54% of their turnover. Everton that year, spent 89% of theirs. There have been seasons where we spent only 30% of our turnover on players.

It's not the absolute figures, which even then are complete bollocks anyway. It's the proportion of our total spending power that we choose to use. And in that regard, we are rock bottom and are always rock bottom.

Now, I'm going to be a little harsh, but you needled me a little:

Let's not let your ignorance of the reality of the situation get in the way of a good debate.

 

[shelfboy68]

Was only a couple of seasons ago that Chelsea had a transfer ban. So the authorities have punished them. They’ve also tried to punish City.

Nothing is going to stop these clubs if they want to be and buy the best they will all the sponsors want these clubs in competitions as they have the best players.

 

[spids]

To be fair they were winning stuff before Roman took over he just made them better.

I hate this air brushing of history. What were they winning? One First Division title in 1955 and three FA Cups in over 100 years? Chelsea were a small club, always mid table or 2nd tier. Then, under Ken Bates they did a 'Leeds' - they spent way beyond their means to try and reach the CL. They actually qualified with a 2-1 win against Liverpool in the last game of the season in 2002/2003 to finish 4th, just as they were about to go bust. And they were hours, not days - hours, from going bust when Abramovich bought them. And since then he has 'loaned' hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds to the club that has come from dubious sources. Financially doped success that means nothing. Very similar story to Man City.

 

[spids]

That's not how it works.

It's not about the absolute spend - it's about the proportion of turnover used on player staff.

The cost of buying a player - you know the shit you see like 'Man City have bought Jack Grealish for £100m' is complete toilet water.

First off - the cost of purchasing a player is not, as I've said repeatedly ever like this:

"1st August - Player Purchase - Jack Grealish - £100,000,000"

The cost of purchasing a player is spread over the length of the player's contract. It's called amortisation.

Plus that spread-out cost when it appears on a club's balance sheet also includes the player's wages.

So, Grealish has a six-year, £200,000 p/w contract with Man City. His expense will therefore be noted more along the lines of:

"2021-22: £27,066,666
"2022-23: £27,066,666
"2023-24: £27,066,666..." etc, etc.

Although the figures will reduce over time because the balance sheet value of the asset goes down - so, they may record it as £30m, the first year, £28m the second year, etc.

Man City and no club anywhere transfers over £100,000,000 or £40,000,000 or even £100,000 in one chunk. The 'spend' you've just posted is complete and utter bullshit. That's not me saying you did that deliberately - it's what we've been told by the likes of Sky and the BBC with their 'this is how much clubs spent this transfer window' bollocks. But the reality of transfers and football finance in general completely different to that narrative. It simply doesn't work that way.

What we do know is how much of a club's turnover is spent on paying for playing staff. For those figures, as a proportion of our turnover, we are rock bottom. In the last season where there are figures available, we spent 46% of our turnover on playing staff. That's the lowest in the Premier League. Sheffield United, in their first season, spent 54% of their turnover. Everton that year, spent 89% of theirs. There have been seasons where we spent only 30% of our turnover on players.

It's not the absolute figures, which even then are complete bollocks anyway. It's the proportion of our total spending power that we choose to use. And in that regard, we are rock bottom and are always rock bottom.

Now, I'm going to be a little harsh, but you needled me a little:

Let's not let your ignorance of the reality of the situation get in the way of a good debate.

We were not talking about proportion of turnover. It is fact that we have 6th highest wage bill. A fact.
I was responding to someone who said we had the lowest budget which is total BS.

 

[Sp3akerboxxx]

 

[Albertbarich]

We were not talking about proportion of turnover. It is fact that we have 6th highest wage bill. A fact.
I was responding to someone who said we had the lowest budget which is total BS.

But in relation to our turnover we do and surely that's a pretty important sign of our ambition or lack thereof?

 

[shelfboy68]

I hate this air brushing of history. What were they winning? One First Division title in 1955 and three FA Cups in over 100 years? Chelsea were a small club, always mid table or 2nd tier. Then, under Ken Bates they did a 'Leeds' - they spent way beyond their means to try and reach the CL. They actually qualified with a 2-1 win against Liverpool in the last game of the season in 2002/2003 to finish 4th, just as they were about to go bust. And they were hours, not days - hours, from going bust when Abramovich bought them. And since then he has 'loaned' hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds to the club that has come from dubious sources. Financially doped success that means nothing. Very similar story to Man City.

From memory after hoddle took over they won a couple of cups fa and league cup I believe they also started finishing in or around the top four then Roman took them on.
As for small club that now applies to us one trophy in 21 years is noted we should be proud of.
Between us winning the 91 FA Cup and Abramavic buying them, they won it in 97 and 2000, they won the league cup in 98, Uefa Cup Winners Cup winners 98, Uefa Super Cup 98,