Tottingham Hotspur

[Bombadil 0]

Haven't seen much evidence of Spurs signing crap players for the sake of it tbh. They seem to be building a squad to me.

 

Not for the sake of it, but certainly there have been a number of poor aquisitions, and it doesn't seem to have improved the squad any, despite greater depth.

Well, we'll have to judge how someone like Roeder is doing in the transfer market when he signs the same amount of players. I think there will always be some players who turn out to be rubbish. That happens at every club, be it Manchester, Arsenal, Spurs or us...

Them having not improved their squad is questionable tbh.

 

Anyway, the new, trendy spursbashing is really getting boring tbstbs.

 

SPUDS R RILLY SHIET!11!! LOL

 

I disagree, long may it continue!

 

Finishing above them would make this thoroughly underwhelming season of ours a little bit better. This time last year the media went into overdrive over their supposed Champions League challenge, good to see it's come to nothing.

[Park Life 70]

This is what I posted on Spurs a few days ago...

 

An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with shite like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge.

 

As a club I don't think you can fault the way they are being run off the field, I personally don't rate Jol that highly as a coach but even if they replace him they will still have a solid structure to build on which was put together by a DOF, even the shit they have signed they've sold on at a profit.

 

Funnily enough Leazes slags off the idea of a Director of Football like Spurs have but then talks about how much he admires Arsene Wenger and his youth policy, not realising it's the same person that scouted before bring to Wenger's attention these young players Arsenal have brought through recently.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Comolli

 

Damien Comolli joined Tottenham Hotspur FC in September 2005 as sporting director, with overall responsibility for the medical, academy, scouting and club secretarial departments, replacing the outgoing Frank Arnesen.

 

He was born in Beziers, France and played as a youth team player at Monaco. In 1992 he began a successful three-year coaching job with Monaco where he looked after the club’s Under-16 squads and won the state championship at that level. Comolli completed a law degree in 1995 and gained his French coaching licence. He then spent seven seasons with Arsenal as European scout and is credited with the discovery of several of Arsenal's youngsters, including Kolo Toure and Emmanuel Eboue and played a major role in signing Thiery Henry and Robert Pires.

 

When he was technical director of AS Saint-Étienne, the club was successful, finishing sixth in the league and reaching the semi-finals of the French Cup. During his time there he also oversaw a number of important first team signings and developed partnerships with junior and amateur clubs, locally, nationally and internationally.

 

He speaks fluent English, Spanish, and French.

 

Still, I'm sure Kenneth Shepherd can do a better job for us...

 

 

Spurs are very organised behind the scenes now and it will start to bear fruit in the medium term.

[U_V 0]

Spurs are very organised behind the scenes now and it will start to bear fruit in the medium term.

 

Well a number of Spurs fans aren't happy with the setup:

 

http://www.gg-chat.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70196

 

Personally, I'm not convinced by the Chairman - DoF - Coach setup and would rather have the more traditional Chairman - Manager - Chief Scout heirarchy (while still recognising the importance of the latter). If Spurs want to get rid of Jol (they should) then which top class managers are going to want the job knowing they wont have control over which players the club buys and sells (even more so than just the chairman having a say)? Even if they get someone, with that system there are now 3 big egos to potentialy clash and fall out rather than the normal 2.

Edited February 5, 2007 by U_V

[Baggio 0]

Spurs are very organised behind the scenes now and it will start to bear fruit in the medium term.

 

Well a number of Spurs fans aren't happy with the setup:

 

http://www.gg-chat.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70196

 

Personally, I'm not convinced by the Chairman - DoF - Coach setup and would rather have the more traditional Chairman - Manager - Chief Scout heirarchy (while still recognising the importance of the latter). If Spurs want to get rid of Jol (they should) then which top class managers are going to want the job knowing they wont have control over which players the club buys and sells (even more so than just the chairman having a say)? Even if they get someone, with that system there are now 3 big egos to potentialy clash and fall out rather than the normal 2.

 

Who said the manager has no say who they buy or sell?

 

The understanding of DOF role is that the manager highlights a position in his squad that needs strengthening then the DOF will scout several players in that position, before bringing his findings to the manager so he can have the final decision. It's how Wenger does it at Arsenal, Jol does it at Spurs and Mourinho does it at Chelsea.

 

A Director of Football is basically someone who deals with all aspects to the playing side of the club apart from first team tactics and training, which is much better than having Roeder ringing around for loan player who he's never seen play.

[Sima 0]

Are Spurs referred to as cockney mackems, much like Everton are called scouse mackems?

 

SNORE!

[Park Life 70]

Spurs are very organised behind the scenes now and it will start to bear fruit in the medium term.

 

Well a number of Spurs fans aren't happy with the setup:

 

http://www.gg-chat.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70196

 

Personally, I'm not convinced by the Chairman - DoF - Coach setup and would rather have the more traditional Chairman - Manager - Chief Scout heirarchy (while still recognising the importance of the latter). If Spurs want to get rid of Jol (they should) then which top class managers are going to want the job knowing they wont have control over which players the club buys and sells (even more so than just the chairman having a say)? Even if they get someone, with that system there are now 3 big egos to potentialy clash and fall out rather than the normal 2.

 

Christ reading that forum you've got to laugh really. What an ungrateful fickle bunch! To an extent I agree with you Spurs have bought some distinctly average players, but have also unearthed or acquired some gems.

I think Zokora, Berbatov and even Murphy (if used correctly) are good signings. The left back Lee is average and not good enough on the left foot and they also have no winger who can go wide.

 

Last year this didn't matter as they mainly played through the middle with Carrick controlling the tempo and Mido knocking down balls for Keane/Defoe. This year they are trying to play more 'Dutch' football, but don't have enough true class to carry it off. Hence why Mido and in turn Keane have sufferred, neither with the nouse to really understand how and what Jol wants. I think Jol is really hadicapped cause atm he doesn't really have a commander in the field in the key compartments of def and mf without King and Carrick.

 

JOL needs to make his mind up as to whether he is going back to the first phase attack he played last year or the veiled attack they are playing now with forwards rotating and dragging the def out and wide. Man Utd use to play a variation when they had the Horse, but with veiled attack they are more flexible now as opposition def aren't sure where the real attack is coming from as Rooney, Saha and Ronaldo all rotate deep and the mf overlap. This is very much Quiroz doing and the type of thing seen in Portugal and Spain.

JOL is playing safe with the mf and the attack compressing only to release when say Lennon or Defoe (wandering wide left get the ball). This is a middle ground between first phase (knock it wide - attackers behave like attackers) or veiled rotate and triangle pass to the edge of the area and 4/5 players 'behave' like 'the attacker'.

 

 

None of their strikers really like 'playing right up' and all seem to want to drop off. Spurs are sufferring a little like us as neither of us have a true 'fox in the box' type player (Owen's new game withstanding).

 

Coming back to what we were saying I think both systems have merits and it really comes down to the personalities and qualifications involved. It is fair to say that if Spurs do buy a duff player, let's say Tainio, the contract is such that they can get rid of him pretty sharpish. Buying players as a descision by committee which is what happens at Spurs is good to the extent is cuts dowm the percentage of buying a real drongo in the Luque/Boumsong style. I agree some top managers would be put off by this and not want to move to Spurs.

[Isegrim 8870]

Spurs are very organised behind the scenes now and it will start to bear fruit in the medium term.

 

Well a number of Spurs fans aren't happy with the setup:

 

http://www.gg-chat.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70196

 

Personally, I'm not convinced by the Chairman - DoF - Coach setup and would rather have the more traditional Chairman - Manager - Chief Scout heirarchy (while still recognising the importance of the latter). If Spurs want to get rid of Jol (they should) then which top class managers are going to want the job knowing they wont have control over which players the club buys and sells (even more so than just the chairman having a say)? Even if they get someone, with that system there are now 3 big egos to potentialy clash and fall out rather than the normal 2.

I don't think it will be a problem when getting a new manager. All European managers are used to the system, where someone else is concentrating on the business and strategic side of things. And I think also the other big clubs in England have a similar system without it running under the title of a director of football, but are called chief executives or something similar. Look at the likes of Peter Kenyon etc. It's just Newcastle who just have Roeder and Fat Fred, who is holding most key positions at the club simultaneously. And I'd still llike to know how much he is involved in Shepherd offshores these days. A club like Newcastle nowadays need someone who is doing the business job 24 hours a day.

[Park Life 70]

What I should have said earlier is that Spurs look rubbish atm, because they are changing their style fundamentally to last year and some games it doensn't really come of. But in the long term when the get into it, it will be more beneficial for them as against our knocking it into a channel and hoping Oba or Kieron will run onto it lark.

[LeazesMag 0]

This is what I posted on Spurs a few days ago...

 

An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with shite like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge.

 

As a club I don't think you can fault the way they are being run off the field, I personally don't rate Jol that highly as a coach but even if they replace him they will still have a solid structure to build on which was put together by a DOF, even the shit they have signed they've sold on at a profit.

 

Funnily enough Leazes slags off the idea of a Director of Football like Spurs have but then talks about how much he admires Arsene Wenger and his youth policy, not realising it's the same person that scouted before bring to Wenger's attention these young players Arsenal have brought through recently.

 

 

incorrect and not even interpreting what I have said in the slightest, deliberately to make you look less of a tit I suspect.

 

A few weeks ago you said Spurs had a "plan".....I say, as I've always done, that a "plan" is bollocks because ALL clubs have a "plan"....they appoint a manager for a contract and therein lies their "plan". Its the manager and the manager alone who is important. Furthermore, to suggest that a 10m bid for a 17 year old footballer wouldn't effect a clubs resources is as big a load of bollocks as I've ever read on here. I also asked you if you think Spurs would have finished as high last season under Santini as they did under Jol. The answer is probably "no". So that tells you the "plan" is bollocks, its the manager that counts.

 

Wenger is simply a brilliant manager, full stop. Because he has good judgement and has got his strategy and his judgement correct, to a degree where you could see him succeeding anywhere he went.

 

Fact is also, nobody qualifies for europe more than 4 other clubs during a time span of a decade, without it being part of a "plan" - if you put such a high stock in such things, and backing their managers. The trouble is, people like you use this word "plan" as the cliche of the moment to make you sound like you know what you are talking about. The simple fact is, you and your ilk have your heads up your arse about the current board so much you are completely reluctant, or more likely unable, to give them any credit for anything.

 

I don't know what the idiots will do or say if we are taken over by a board who don't have the ambition to back their managers anymore, like the current board. Finally, after all this time debating these issues, I am STILL waiting for someone to tell us who these directors waiting in the backround with the desire and the guarantee they will improve on regular UEFA Cup qualification over a decade, as you appear to think it is, or should be, so easy.

[Pegasus Bridge 0]

Whats lucky about having the best keeper in the league, and him doing his job at WHL?

 

Nowt.

[gram 0]

Business planning involves so much more than you say Leazes. Really!!! However, I will keep it simple for you.

Any well run business understands that the real key to success is the 'right' people. That involves looking at a range of factors. Temperment, ability and experience and should be factored into any appointment. Obviously they are weighed up against potential benefits to the organisation.

'Planning' involves looking for the correct people in advance. It is proactive rather than reactive. That is obvious. Liverpool are a good example with their appointment of Benitez. We were in a similar state to them when Benitez was appointed and we have spent similar amounts. That they had learned from past mistakes in terms of appointments goes without saying. We, however, appear not to have learned that lesson. The Souness and Roeder appointments should never have been allowed to occur.

How does a business manage to avoid poor appointments like this? Well they stop reacting. The last 4 appointments have been reactionary. One was a success - of sorts although other clubs of a similar size may dispute that claim. Personally I thought Bobby did well although he was far too soft with some players. He was also undermined by Shepherd in the summer, just prior to his departure. I doubt even you could dispute that FACT.

The only idiot on this board who doesnt understand the problems with not identifying errors early and rectifying them proactively is you. Liverpool, despite winning more than we could dream of, knew their manager had overstayed his welcome. He was replaced with a man who could move them on - his track record was exemplary in modern football. We didnt do that, nor have we shown any sign that we are ready to do so.

Its bad management. Roeder isnt the answer but we let him loose with the first team. That FFS can't see what is obvious to so many is staggering but I doubt it has crossed his mind to be looking for better.

Nb: All success is relative. The top 5 nonsense is fairly dim when you consider the return on the investment made. Who employs the likes of Souness and Roeder? Thats where real planning and proactive management should come in. FACTUALLY we can see that our chairman has reacted to dodgy situations he brought about himself - either in terms of poor decision making or undermining his manager.

There can be no disputing that.

Edited February 5, 2007 by gram

[LeazesMag 0]

Business planning involves so much more than you say Leazes. Really!!! However, I will keep it simple for you.

Any well run business understands that the real key to success is the 'right' people. That involves looking at a range of factors. Temperment, ability and experience and should be factored into any appointment. Obviously they are weighed up against potential benefits to the organisation.

'Planning' involves looking for the correct people in advance. It is proactive rather than reactive. That is obvious. Liverpool are a good example with their appointment of Benitez. We were in a similar state to them when Benitez was appointed and we have spent similar amounts. That they had learned from past mistakes in terms of appointments goes without saying. We, however, appear not to have learned that lesson. The Souness and Roeder appointments should never have been allowed to occur.

How does a business manage to avoid poor appointments like this? Well they stop reacting. The last 4 appointments have been reactionary. One was a success - of sorts although other clubs of a similar size may dispute that claim. Personally I thought Bobby did well although he was far too soft with some players. He was also undermined by Shepherd in the summer, just prior to his departure. I doubt even you could dispute that FACT.

The only idiot on this board who doesnt understand the problems with not identifying errors early and rectifying them proactively is you. Liverpool, despite winning more than we could dream of, knew their manager had overspent his welcome. He was replaced with a man who could move them on - his track record was exemplary in modern football. We didnt do that, nor have we shown any sign that we are ready to do so.

Its bad management. Roeder isnt the answer but we let him loose with the first team. That FFS can't see what is obvious to so many is staggering but I doubt it has crossed his mind to be looking for better.

Nb: All success is relative. The top 5 nonsense is fairly dim when you consider the return on the investment made. Who employs the likes of Souness and Roeder? Thats where real planning and proactive management should come in. FACTUALLY we can see that our chairman has reacted to dodgy situations he brought about himself - either in terms of poor decision making or undermining his manager.

There can be no disputing that.

 

In football terms, to be the 5th best in your field over a span of a decade is hardly failure.

 

In business terms, if you are totally unable to see, or give credit for, a major stadium expansion and a new training academy, you have a problem.

 

A serious problem. Called head up the arse syndrome. Perhaps you could also tell us how many clubs have carried bigger major off the field developments than us as well as qualifying more for europe ?

 

Only 4 clubs have qualified more for europe than us in the past decade. Fact.

 

The same 4 clubs are the only clubs with a higher average league position. So where does that leave us, other than 5th ?

 

Like a lot of the other dimwits, you completely take for granted one thing that matters far more than almost anything, and that is backing their chosen manager with transfer money. This is the most important thing a board can do. And - as i keep saying - it isn't automatic, they don't have to do it. If you can't understand this, then you also have a serious problem in your understanding of football, which is not like a "normal" business.

Edited February 5, 2007 by LeazesMag

[Baggio 0]

This is what I posted on Spurs a few days ago...

 

An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with shite like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge.

 

As a club I don't think you can fault the way they are being run off the field, I personally don't rate Jol that highly as a coach but even if they replace him they will still have a solid structure to build on which was put together by a DOF, even the shit they have signed they've sold on at a profit.

 

Funnily enough Leazes slags off the idea of a Director of Football like Spurs have but then talks about how much he admires Arsene Wenger and his youth policy, not realising it's the same person that scouted before bring to Wenger's attention these young players Arsenal have brought through recently.

 

 

incorrect and not even interpreting what I have said in the slightest, deliberately to make you look less of a tit I suspect.

 

A few weeks ago you said Spurs had a "plan".....I say, as I've always done, that a "plan" is bollocks because ALL clubs have a "plan"....they appoint a manager for a contract and therein lies their "plan". Its the manager and the manager alone who is important. Furthermore, to suggest that a 10m bid for a 17 year old footballer wouldn't effect a clubs resources is as big a load of bollocks as I've ever read on here. I also asked you if you think Spurs would have finished as high last season under Santini as they did under Jol. The answer is probably "no". So that tells you the "plan" is bollocks, its the manager that counts.

 

Wenger is simply a brilliant manager, full stop. Because he has good judgement and has got his strategy and his judgement correct, to a degree where you could see him succeeding anywhere he went.

 

Fact is also, nobody qualifies for europe more than 4 other clubs during a time span of a decade, without it being part of a "plan" - if you put such a high stock in such things, and backing their managers. The trouble is, people like you use this word "plan" as the cliche of the moment to make you sound like you know what you are talking about. The simple fact is, you and your ilk have your heads up your arse about the current board so much you are completely reluctant, or more likely unable, to give them any credit for anything.

 

I don't know what the idiots will do or say if we are taken over by a board who don't have the ambition to back their managers anymore, like the current board. Finally, after all this time debating these issues, I am STILL waiting for someone to tell us who these directors waiting in the backround with the desire and the guarantee they will improve on regular UEFA Cup qualification over a decade, as you appear to think it is, or should be, so easy.

 

Your first point about Santini and would they have been as good if he had stayed, I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that they wouldn't have been as good considering he was only there for 13 matches, he started brightly winning most of his opening games but results took a turn for the worse before he left for personal reasons, apparently his wife was ill which were the reasons for his departure.

 

As for the £10 million for Bale not having too much of an impact on the clubs finances, they are a PLC with a cash positive bank balance so the money they would have spent on him wouldn't have the same impact on them in the way it would have on us, Bale's transfer fee is sat in their bank account where as we would have to borrow to finance the deal.

 

Serious question Leazes, do you think we will be the 5th best team in England over the next decade?

[LeazesMag 0]

This is what I posted on Spurs a few days ago...

 

An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with shite like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge.

 

As a club I don't think you can fault the way they are being run off the field, I personally don't rate Jol that highly as a coach but even if they replace him they will still have a solid structure to build on which was put together by a DOF, even the shit they have signed they've sold on at a profit.

 

Funnily enough Leazes slags off the idea of a Director of Football like Spurs have but then talks about how much he admires Arsene Wenger and his youth policy, not realising it's the same person that scouted before bring to Wenger's attention these young players Arsenal have brought through recently.

 

 

incorrect and not even interpreting what I have said in the slightest, deliberately to make you look less of a tit I suspect.

 

A few weeks ago you said Spurs had a "plan".....I say, as I've always done, that a "plan" is bollocks because ALL clubs have a "plan"....they appoint a manager for a contract and therein lies their "plan". Its the manager and the manager alone who is important. Furthermore, to suggest that a 10m bid for a 17 year old footballer wouldn't effect a clubs resources is as big a load of bollocks as I've ever read on here. I also asked you if you think Spurs would have finished as high last season under Santini as they did under Jol. The answer is probably "no". So that tells you the "plan" is bollocks, its the manager that counts.

 

Wenger is simply a brilliant manager, full stop. Because he has good judgement and has got his strategy and his judgement correct, to a degree where you could see him succeeding anywhere he went.

 

Fact is also, nobody qualifies for europe more than 4 other clubs during a time span of a decade, without it being part of a "plan" - if you put such a high stock in such things, and backing their managers. The trouble is, people like you use this word "plan" as the cliche of the moment to make you sound like you know what you are talking about. The simple fact is, you and your ilk have your heads up your arse about the current board so much you are completely reluctant, or more likely unable, to give them any credit for anything.

 

I don't know what the idiots will do or say if we are taken over by a board who don't have the ambition to back their managers anymore, like the current board. Finally, after all this time debating these issues, I am STILL waiting for someone to tell us who these directors waiting in the backround with the desire and the guarantee they will improve on regular UEFA Cup qualification over a decade, as you appear to think it is, or should be, so easy.

 

Your first point about Santini and would they have been as good if he had stayed, I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that they wouldn't have been as good considering he was only there for 13 matches, he started brightly winning most of his opening games but results took a turn for the worse before he left for personal reasons, apparently his wife was ill which were the reasons for his departure.

 

As for the £10 million for Bale not having too much of an impact on the clubs finances, they are a PLC with a cash positive bank balance so the money they would have spent on him wouldn't have the same impact on them in the way it would have on us, Bale's transfer fee is sat in their bank account where as we would have to borrow to finance the deal.

 

Serious question Leazes, do you think we will be the 5th best team in England over the next decade?

 

First bit is bollocks, as expected. Santini was doing crap at Spurs.

 

I am pleased you say 10m quid wouldn't have an impact on Spurs being a PLC, ignoring the fact that we have spent massive money ourselves, far more than Spurs in fact. And - other than Chelsea and manure, 10m is a lot of money to spend on a 17 year old player, it must be damaging to them. What if he doesn't make it ? I bet the fuckwits on some of these boards would call him a "trophy" signing if we spent that much money on such a player. Yes, I mean you.

 

I have no idea how well we will do in the next decade. Very well if we appoint the right manager in fact, at least we would so long as we have a board that backs him that is, because if we didn't he would simply fuck off somewhere else.

 

Edit. I am STILL waiting for these magical figures who are going to come in and guarantee better than regular UEFA Cup qualification, as it is so easy, and we have a divine right to better.

Edited February 5, 2007 by LeazesMag

[gram 0]

Business planning involves so much more than you say Leazes. Really!!! However, I will keep it simple for you.

Any well run business understands that the real key to success is the 'right' people. That involves looking at a range of factors. Temperment, ability and experience and should be factored into any appointment. Obviously they are weighed up against potential benefits to the organisation.

'Planning' involves looking for the correct people in advance. It is proactive rather than reactive. That is obvious. Liverpool are a good example with their appointment of Benitez. We were in a similar state to them when Benitez was appointed and we have spent similar amounts. That they had learned from past mistakes in terms of appointments goes without saying. We, however, appear not to have learned that lesson. The Souness and Roeder appointments should never have been allowed to occur.

How does a business manage to avoid poor appointments like this? Well they stop reacting. The last 4 appointments have been reactionary. One was a success - of sorts although other clubs of a similar size may dispute that claim. Personally I thought Bobby did well although he was far too soft with some players. He was also undermined by Shepherd in the summer, just prior to his departure. I doubt even you could dispute that FACT.

The only idiot on this board who doesnt understand the problems with not identifying errors early and rectifying them proactively is you. Liverpool, despite winning more than we could dream of, knew their manager had overspent his welcome. He was replaced with a man who could move them on - his track record was exemplary in modern football. We didnt do that, nor have we shown any sign that we are ready to do so.

Its bad management. Roeder isnt the answer but we let him loose with the first team. That FFS can't see what is obvious to so many is staggering but I doubt it has crossed his mind to be looking for better.

Nb: All success is relative. The top 5 nonsense is fairly dim when you consider the return on the investment made. Who employs the likes of Souness and Roeder? Thats where real planning and proactive management should come in. FACTUALLY we can see that our chairman has reacted to dodgy situations he brought about himself - either in terms of poor decision making or undermining his manager.

There can be no disputing that.

 

In football terms, to be the 5th best in your field over a span of a decade is hardly failure.

 

In business terms, if you are totally unable to see, or give credit for, a major stadium expansion and a new training academy, you have a problem.

 

A serious problem. Called head up the arse syndrome. Perhaps you could also tell us how many clubs have carried bigger major off the field developments than us as well as qualifying more for europe ?

 

Only 4 clubs have qualified more for europe than us in the past decade. Fact.

 

The same 4 clubs are the only clubs with a higher average league position. So where does that leave us, other than 5th ?

 

Like a lot of the other dimwits, you completely take for granted one thing that matters far more than almost anything, and that is backing their chosen manager with transfer money. This is the most important thing a board can do. And - as i keep saying - it isn't automatic, they don't have to do it. If you can't understand this, then you also have a serious problem in your understanding of football, which is not like a "normal" business.

The irony! Never play Poker Leazes. You give your hand away so easily when you are beaten.

Your flagrant disregard for the argument presented about proactive recruitment of key personnel is amusing though

[LeazesMag 0]

Business planning involves so much more than you say Leazes. Really!!! However, I will keep it simple for you.

Any well run business understands that the real key to success is the 'right' people. That involves looking at a range of factors. Temperment, ability and experience and should be factored into any appointment. Obviously they are weighed up against potential benefits to the organisation.

'Planning' involves looking for the correct people in advance. It is proactive rather than reactive. That is obvious. Liverpool are a good example with their appointment of Benitez. We were in a similar state to them when Benitez was appointed and we have spent similar amounts. That they had learned from past mistakes in terms of appointments goes without saying. We, however, appear not to have learned that lesson. The Souness and Roeder appointments should never have been allowed to occur.

How does a business manage to avoid poor appointments like this? Well they stop reacting. The last 4 appointments have been reactionary. One was a success - of sorts although other clubs of a similar size may dispute that claim. Personally I thought Bobby did well although he was far too soft with some players. He was also undermined by Shepherd in the summer, just prior to his departure. I doubt even you could dispute that FACT.

The only idiot on this board who doesnt understand the problems with not identifying errors early and rectifying them proactively is you. Liverpool, despite winning more than we could dream of, knew their manager had overspent his welcome. He was replaced with a man who could move them on - his track record was exemplary in modern football. We didnt do that, nor have we shown any sign that we are ready to do so.

Its bad management. Roeder isnt the answer but we let him loose with the first team. That FFS can't see what is obvious to so many is staggering but I doubt it has crossed his mind to be looking for better.

Nb: All success is relative. The top 5 nonsense is fairly dim when you consider the return on the investment made. Who employs the likes of Souness and Roeder? Thats where real planning and proactive management should come in. FACTUALLY we can see that our chairman has reacted to dodgy situations he brought about himself - either in terms of poor decision making or undermining his manager.

There can be no disputing that.

 

In football terms, to be the 5th best in your field over a span of a decade is hardly failure.

 

In business terms, if you are totally unable to see, or give credit for, a major stadium expansion and a new training academy, you have a problem.

 

A serious problem. Called head up the arse syndrome. Perhaps you could also tell us how many clubs have carried bigger major off the field developments than us as well as qualifying more for europe ?

 

Only 4 clubs have qualified more for europe than us in the past decade. Fact.

 

The same 4 clubs are the only clubs with a higher average league position. So where does that leave us, other than 5th ?

 

Like a lot of the other dimwits, you completely take for granted one thing that matters far more than almost anything, and that is backing their chosen manager with transfer money. This is the most important thing a board can do. And - as i keep saying - it isn't automatic, they don't have to do it. If you can't understand this, then you also have a serious problem in your understanding of football, which is not like a "normal" business.

The irony! Never play Poker Leazes. You give your hand away so easily when you are beaten.

Your flagrant disregard for the argument presented about proactive recruitment of key personnel is amusing though

 

I don't gamble. I also know about and understand how football works, unlike you. Thanks for answering the questions and debating the issues though.

[gram 0]

Business planning involves so much more than you say Leazes. Really!!! However, I will keep it simple for you.

Any well run business understands that the real key to success is the 'right' people. That involves looking at a range of factors. Temperment, ability and experience and should be factored into any appointment. Obviously they are weighed up against potential benefits to the organisation.

'Planning' involves looking for the correct people in advance. It is proactive rather than reactive. That is obvious. Liverpool are a good example with their appointment of Benitez. We were in a similar state to them when Benitez was appointed and we have spent similar amounts. That they had learned from past mistakes in terms of appointments goes without saying. We, however, appear not to have learned that lesson. The Souness and Roeder appointments should never have been allowed to occur.

How does a business manage to avoid poor appointments like this? Well they stop reacting. The last 4 appointments have been reactionary. One was a success - of sorts although other clubs of a similar size may dispute that claim. Personally I thought Bobby did well although he was far too soft with some players. He was also undermined by Shepherd in the summer, just prior to his departure. I doubt even you could dispute that FACT.

The only idiot on this board who doesnt understand the problems with not identifying errors early and rectifying them proactively is you. Liverpool, despite winning more than we could dream of, knew their manager had overspent his welcome. He was replaced with a man who could move them on - his track record was exemplary in modern football. We didnt do that, nor have we shown any sign that we are ready to do so.

Its bad management. Roeder isnt the answer but we let him loose with the first team. That FFS can't see what is obvious to so many is staggering but I doubt it has crossed his mind to be looking for better.

Nb: All success is relative. The top 5 nonsense is fairly dim when you consider the return on the investment made. Who employs the likes of Souness and Roeder? Thats where real planning and proactive management should come in. FACTUALLY we can see that our chairman has reacted to dodgy situations he brought about himself - either in terms of poor decision making or undermining his manager.

There can be no disputing that.

 

In football terms, to be the 5th best in your field over a span of a decade is hardly failure.

 

In business terms, if you are totally unable to see, or give credit for, a major stadium expansion and a new training academy, you have a problem.

 

A serious problem. Called head up the arse syndrome. Perhaps you could also tell us how many clubs have carried bigger major off the field developments than us as well as qualifying more for europe ?

 

Only 4 clubs have qualified more for europe than us in the past decade. Fact.

 

The same 4 clubs are the only clubs with a higher average league position. So where does that leave us, other than 5th ?

 

Like a lot of the other dimwits, you completely take for granted one thing that matters far more than almost anything, and that is backing their chosen manager with transfer money. This is the most important thing a board can do. And - as i keep saying - it isn't automatic, they don't have to do it. If you can't understand this, then you also have a serious problem in your understanding of football, which is not like a "normal" business.

The irony! Never play Poker Leazes. You give your hand away so easily when you are beaten.

Your flagrant disregard for the argument presented about proactive recruitment of key personnel is amusing though

 

I don't gamble. I also know about and understand how football works, unlike you. Thanks for answering the questions and debating the issues though.

Wise move

Maybe we could discuss the issue of proactive recruitment again.

Nb: I have no issue with FFS and his work off the field. He has done a lot of good. On the most important issue he is found wanting though.

[Baggio 0]

First bit is bollocks, as expected. Santini was doing crap at Spurs.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...pur/3987327.stm

 

14-08-2004 English Premier Tottenham 1-1 Liverpool

21-08-2004 English Premier Newcastle 0-1 Tottenham

25-08-2004 English Premier West Brom 1-1 Tottenham

28-08-2004 English Premier Tottenham 1-0 Birmingham

12-09-2004 English Premier Tottenham 0-0 Norwich

19-09-2004 English Premier Chelsea 0-0 Tottenham

25-09-2004 English Premier Tottenham 0-1 Man Utd

02-10-2004 English Premier Everton 0-1 Tottenham

18-10-2004 English Premier Portsmouth 1-0 Tottenham

23-10-2004 English Premier Tottenham 1-2 Bolton

30-10-2004 English Premier Fulham 2-0 Tottenham

 

Jol's record wasn't much better for the rest of the season with the club finishing 9th, saying that no manager can be expected to walk into a club and win every game from day one, it's a building process.

 

I am pleased you say 10m quid wouldn't have an impact on Spurs being a PLC, ignoring the fact that we have spent massive money ourselves, far more than Spurs in fact. And - other than Chelsea and manure, 10m is a lot of money to spend on a 17 year old player, it must be damaging to them. What if he doesn't make it ? I bet the fuckwits on some of these boards would call him a "trophy" signing if we spent that much money on such a player. Yes, I mean you.

 

The difference is, which you're finding it hard to get your head around, is that we are £80 million in debt where Spurs have the money, he may not make it but when a scout who has spotted the majority of Arsenal's youth team tells you he's worth the money then you have to take notice.

 

Different from our chairman who signed a similar size cheque for a 28 year old player who we haven't even scouted on the basis of one of Souness' friends telling him he was a top 3 player in Spain.

 

I have no idea how well we will do in the next decade. Very well if we appoint the right manager in fact, at least we would so long as we have a board that backs him that is, because if we didn't he would simply fuck off somewhere else.

 

Edit. I am STILL waiting for these magical figures who are going to come in and guarantee better than regular UEFA Cup qualification, as it is so easy, and we have a divine right to better.

 

Nobody can name another board who will come in and make us better, you know that so why you keep asking I'm not sure.

[LeazesMag 0]

First bit is bollocks, as expected. Santini was doing crap at Spurs.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...pur/3987327.stm

 

14-08-2004 English Premier Tottenham 1-1 Liverpool

21-08-2004 English Premier Newcastle 0-1 Tottenham

25-08-2004 English Premier West Brom 1-1 Tottenham

28-08-2004 English Premier Tottenham 1-0 Birmingham

12-09-2004 English Premier Tottenham 0-0 Norwich

19-09-2004 English Premier Chelsea 0-0 Tottenham

25-09-2004 English Premier Tottenham 0-1 Man Utd

02-10-2004 English Premier Everton 0-1 Tottenham

18-10-2004 English Premier Portsmouth 1-0 Tottenham

23-10-2004 English Premier Tottenham 1-2 Bolton

30-10-2004 English Premier Fulham 2-0 Tottenham

 

Jol's record wasn't much better for the rest of the season with the club finishing 9th, saying that no manager can be expected to walk into a club and win every game from day one, it's a building process.

 

I am pleased you say 10m quid wouldn't have an impact on Spurs being a PLC, ignoring the fact that we have spent massive money ourselves, far more than Spurs in fact. And - other than Chelsea and manure, 10m is a lot of money to spend on a 17 year old player, it must be damaging to them. What if he doesn't make it ? I bet the fuckwits on some of these boards would call him a "trophy" signing if we spent that much money on such a player. Yes, I mean you.

 

The difference is, which you're finding it hard to get your head around, is that we are £80 million in debt where Spurs have the money, he may not make it but when a scout who has spotted the majority of Arsenal's youth team tells you he's worth the money then you have to take notice.

 

Different from our chairman who signed a similar size cheque for a 28 year old player who we haven't even scouted on the basis of one of Souness' friends telling him he was a top 3 player in Spain.

 

I have no idea how well we will do in the next decade. Very well if we appoint the right manager in fact, at least we would so long as we have a board that backs him that is, because if we didn't he would simply fuck off somewhere else.

 

Edit. I am STILL waiting for these magical figures who are going to come in and guarantee better than regular UEFA Cup qualification, as it is so easy, and we have a divine right to better.

 

Nobody can name another board who will come in and make us better, you know that so why you keep asking I'm not sure.

 

Good boards back their chosen appointments as much as possible. Why is this a difficult concept ? And why are you slating the board for finding the money to buy Souness player, Luque, and not for Robsons player, Miguel ?

 

As i said, slate the board for buying players, and slate them for not. You couldn't make it up.

 

I keep asking for the simple reason, is why promote change when you have no idea who will be better, which is nothing other than the actions of an idiot.

[sammynb 2929]

Good boards back their chosen appointments as much as possible. Why is this a difficult concept ? And why are you slating the board for finding the money to buy Souness player, Luque, and not for Robsons player, Miguel ?

 

As i said, slate the board for buying players, and slate them for not. You couldn't make it up.

 

I keep asking for the simple reason, is why promote change when you have no idea who will be better, which is nothing other than the actions of an idiot.

Sorry Leaze the bit on bold is exactly why you are wrong about Newcastle's board of directors.

If they are responsible for all that is good at Newcastle then they must also be held responsible for their managerial appointments and just on the last two alone their is no excuse. Considering how the whole SBR debarcle was created by the board renewing his contract for another 12 months when ALL, including you, knew his time was up, and then announcing he wouldn't be manager for the following season reeks of someone not knowing what they are doing.

[Guest stevieintoon]

i still expect them to finish above us but we're similar clubs in many ways. both have ideas abover our station.

aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh FUCK OFF

 

FUCKIN JOKER

 

TOP 5 ONCE IN 15 YEARS. THEY OVER ACHIEVE, WE UNDER ACHIEVE, END FUCKIN OF.

 

OUR SUPPORT HAS CHANGED IN 10 YEARS, SO MANY CUNTS NOW IT ANNOYS ME.

[Gemmill 34382]

Stevie's on the drink again.

[Baggio 0]

First bit is bollocks, as expected. Santini was doing crap at Spurs.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...pur/3987327.stm

 

14-08-2004 English Premier Tottenham 1-1 Liverpool

21-08-2004 English Premier Newcastle 0-1 Tottenham

25-08-2004 English Premier West Brom 1-1 Tottenham

28-08-2004 English Premier Tottenham 1-0 Birmingham

12-09-2004 English Premier Tottenham 0-0 Norwich

19-09-2004 English Premier Chelsea 0-0 Tottenham

25-09-2004 English Premier Tottenham 0-1 Man Utd

02-10-2004 English Premier Everton 0-1 Tottenham

18-10-2004 English Premier Portsmouth 1-0 Tottenham

23-10-2004 English Premier Tottenham 1-2 Bolton

30-10-2004 English Premier Fulham 2-0 Tottenham

 

Jol's record wasn't much better for the rest of the season with the club finishing 9th, saying that no manager can be expected to walk into a club and win every game from day one, it's a building process.

 

I am pleased you say 10m quid wouldn't have an impact on Spurs being a PLC, ignoring the fact that we have spent massive money ourselves, far more than Spurs in fact. And - other than Chelsea and manure, 10m is a lot of money to spend on a 17 year old player, it must be damaging to them. What if he doesn't make it ? I bet the fuckwits on some of these boards would call him a "trophy" signing if we spent that much money on such a player. Yes, I mean you.

 

The difference is, which you're finding it hard to get your head around, is that we are £80 million in debt where Spurs have the money, he may not make it but when a scout who has spotted the majority of Arsenal's youth team tells you he's worth the money then you have to take notice.

 

Different from our chairman who signed a similar size cheque for a 28 year old player who we haven't even scouted on the basis of one of Souness' friends telling him he was a top 3 player in Spain.

 

I have no idea how well we will do in the next decade. Very well if we appoint the right manager in fact, at least we would so long as we have a board that backs him that is, because if we didn't he would simply fuck off somewhere else.

 

Edit. I am STILL waiting for these magical figures who are going to come in and guarantee better than regular UEFA Cup qualification, as it is so easy, and we have a divine right to better.

 

Nobody can name another board who will come in and make us better, you know that so why you keep asking I'm not sure.

 

Good boards back their chosen appointments as much as possible. Why is this a difficult concept ? And why are you slating the board for finding the money to buy Souness player, Luque, and not for Robsons player, Miguel ?

 

As i said, slate the board for buying players, and slate them for not. You couldn't make it up.

 

I keep asking for the simple reason, is why promote change when you have no idea who will be better, which is nothing other than the actions of an idiot.

 

I'm not slating the board for backing the manager so don't try and twist my words to suit your argument, what I said was when it comes to identifying talent to sign I'd much rather take the word of someone who scouted the majority of Arsenal's successful youth team over Souness mate. Don't you agree?

 

If you were chairman would you back the manager with £10 million to sign a player who the club hasn't scouted but your managers mate said he was good?

 

You are right we have no idea if a new board will be better, but how much longer do you think the club can go on with the level of spending with the current board? Do you think this board can take us further?

 

We're £80 million in debt, you say it's 'manageable' but it's getting bigger year after year, how much longer do you think this can go on?

 

The fact is the club can't afford to go out and buy several big name players to improve the squad, I put forward a suggestion for a DOF and use the examples of how it has been successful at both Arsenal and Spurs in redeveloping the squad on a budget (nothing to do with the last decade before you start) yet you see this as ridiculous, before you bring up Ray Wilkins at Fulham he was manager not a DOF.

 

How would you like to see us go about it? Do you think we should keep borrowing to buy players in the hope that we'll get it right? Do you worry about us doing a Leeds?

[Sima 0]

i still expect them to finish above us but we're similar clubs in many ways. both have ideas abover our station.

aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh FUCK OFF

 

FUCKIN JOKER

 

TOP 5 ONCE IN 15 YEARS. THEY OVER ACHIEVE, WE UNDER ACHIEVE, END FUCKIN OF.

 

OUR SUPPORT HAS CHANGED IN 10 YEARS, SO MANY CUNTS NOW IT ANNOYS ME.

 

I've got an experiment for you:

 

1) Turn your caps-lock off

2) asphyxiate yourself

 

Order isn't really necessary but I'm being kind as number 2 really is a priority

[Dr Gloom 19801]

i still expect them to finish above us but we're similar clubs in many ways. both have ideas abover our station.

aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh FUCK OFF

 

FUCKIN JOKER

 

TOP 5 ONCE IN 15 YEARS. THEY OVER ACHIEVE, WE UNDER ACHIEVE, END FUCKIN OF.

 

OUR SUPPORT HAS CHANGED IN 10 YEARS, SO MANY CUNTS NOW IT ANNOYS ME.

 

forget to take your prozac?