Daniel Levy - Chairman

[braineclipse]

I think it is very significatn, because essentially, transfers/deals are conducted in the same way they always have been, which means Daniel reverts to his favoured 'let's see if I can squeeze a bit more from this one' and sometimes plays the game too tight to the margins.

Ange had to fight very very hard for VdV. Everyone else wanted Tapsoba (as I understand it). Ange was insistant on VdV.
Take Dragusin. I believe Daniel was instrumental in getting that deal over the line, actually flying to get the paperwork done, but only because he had engaged in usual operations and gone close to losing the deal altogether.

You seem very defensive of him.
I am not about to launch into a defense of all the great things he's done for the club/brand, because we see them everywhere.
The stadium.
Incredible.
But equally, it is undeniable that he has a way of operating which is absolutely rooted in cold finance. And for all the players he has signed, there is a list of key, key players he did not get across the line (or even approach getting across the line).

Perhaps I am defensive of him. I have no issues pointing out mistakes and weaknesses with him. There have been many. He does take long with some signings, that has downsides. But paying more to get deals done quickly would also have downsides. Do that regularly and it would easily cost us a Bergvall or Yang type signing... As long as player and talent identification is good if we get the right player two weeks earlier or two weeks later is not a big deal imo and on the whole a bit of a wash from where I'm seeing things.

I think he's overall good, better than most. A replacement will always be a crap shoot. Rather have someone competent than an unknown.

I would like to undersand the point you're making better mate.

What I am getting from your comment, is that he is damned is he does and damned if he doesn't?

Let's face it, for a variety of reasons debated many many times here, he failed to give Poch the proper lift at key moments.
When he did, it was too late and he sacked him a few months later.
He then hired managers -in Mourinho and Conte- who require large instant injections to deliver immediate results. He didn't give either manager that which they openly require, each hung in for the pay-off, and it was an experiment which failed despite having the most prolific pair of forwards possibly in Premier League history (I known - a bit hyperbolic maybe!).

He has now gone back to 'project' mode, and I am happy with that as long as Ange gets project time and the sort of investment he wants in key areas when he needs it. Gallagher was one of those players. Whether we rate him or not, Ange really wanted him. We didn't get the deal done and it was there to be done. Eze similarly. Solanke? Let's face it, if he hadn't got that done, Ange would likely have quit it was that important to the club. Essentially (IMO) we are back in the early Poch days, and we cannot make the mistakes we made back then (i.e. n ot getting Mane when the manager really wanted him).
If Daniel is prepared to give Ange this season and next, with backing, fantastic and well played. Because I think Ange can do it for us, I really do. Let's see...

In a way yes, damned either way unless we get trophies/real success.

It's really hard for us to succeed, toughest league in the world, financially second best compared to several bigger teams. Most strategies will fail way more often than succeed in those circumstances and unless there's the success we crave he'll get criticism - both fair and unfair.

I was ambivalent to the Mourinho and Conte experiments. And I think Covid hampered our execution of those experiments. But they were long shots, like other strategies more likely to fail than succeed. With Kane and Son I can understand not going into project mode and probably lose Kane earlier than we did... But it didn't work out and I prefer project mode for us by some distance.

He failed to give Pochettino a lift, but the football decisions at the time with regards to transfers also let us down.

From where I'm seeing things we're mostly spending whatever money we can sustainably spend. I think we mostly did so under Pochettino too. I'm not expecting cash injections and do not want oil state money owners.

100%
And in the modern game, if we want to win the major major prizes, top 4 is going to be vital financially.

As for being good enough to be in the CL regularly increasing our chances, that only works IF at that point we invest to actually WIN them, as opposed to simply maintaining a top 4 push.

You might find our pod discussion this week interesting FYI

Again, from where I'm seeing things we do invest, we do spend. Whenever we have money to spend. There was a period with the stadium build we didn't, I think that's in part because we couldn't and in part because the transfer committee at the time let us down.

I don't like the "we should have signed X player" argument. In part because that's an argument that can be made about every other club, including those richer than us, and vastly richer than us pre stadium completion. Partly also because the transfer committee shold be able to identify multiple suitable (ranked) targets.

Tapsoba and VdV... Listen to the manager, but if the first choice isn't gettable, get the next guy.

I think we wanted Doue this summer. We seemed to want Nusa. Those didn't happen, in part couldn't happen. So we got Odobert. I like that. I don't like "Manager wanted X". You have to have a structure in place with multiple good targets being identified for any role.

Which spins an excellent question.
What do we consider moving in a positive direction, and how do we measure it? By ourselves? By those around us?
I'm going to think about it myself.

People will differ.

For me a lot if talent in the squad. Issues in the squad being sorted. A sustainable financial model and a good playing style to attract and develop young players into a team that can succeed over time. Mixed with shorter term fixes for key positions.

But I don't think we had the option of signing both Solanke and Eze without leaving us way too short in other areas. And without adding younger players who will hopefully be really important for us in years to come. I think going for Solanke was a footballing decision, not a Levy decision.

 

[braineclipse]

looking back at the last transfer window, we secured exciting young talents but only solanke as an established quality addition.

its an improvement to when there was no budget for poch to improve the team, but really if levy wanted to win something it was obvious we needed a quality backup/improvement in at least a couple of positions.

if levy wanted to win something it wasn't this season with ange

We needed all the players we signed. We'd be fudged at full back if not for what Gray has offered us. We needed another midfielder like Bergvall even though he hasn't stepped up so far. We needed a dribbly both sided winger like Odobert. And these last couple of months have shown quite clearly why we needed another wide option in Werner.

If there was a way to sign that number of players and getting 2-3 established quality options as a part of that while still getting a similar number of players in I think that would have been a decent option.

If that was done it would probably have been at the expense of Gray and Odobert, two really talented players I like. And probably signing a couple of less talented option players instead.

At some point we would have needed those players, they probably would have been a bit meh. Levy would be blamed for not backing the manager and in 18 months those meh players would be sold at a loss making people question the decision making of this summer's transfer window.

I like this approach because even if it hurts us somewhat short term at least we have Gray, Bergvall, Yang and Odobert and hopefully at least a couple of them will step up over time. We've seen repeatedly how the process of signing for the here and now can also hurt us, both short and long term.

Our failure to sign top talented young players over years stretching back through the Pochettino end times and Mourinho, until Paratici came in is imo the main reason our squad was in such a mess when Ange took over.

The younger players we did start signing when Paratici came in like Udogie and Sarr have been key in somewhat fixing those issues. The last thing we should do is stop with those signings. Not saying you want us to stop, but I think it makes sense to prioritise those signings in a window like this summer. We needed a lot of players being back in Europe.