Ex-managers: I'm pining for the past and cannot move on

[NWND]

Yeah I agree but Chelsea weren't interested in him as long as we were as far as I recall.

It doesn't matter though does it, as we saw with Willian, Liverpool did all the work in establishing at what price his club would sell, what terms he'd accept. We jumped with a slightly more appealing offer. Chelsea waited until he was completing a medical before deciding they'd offer more.

It doesn't matter how long they were interested in Cahill for. Once they became interested in him, we were never going to sign him.

 

[NWND]

That really isn't the point. Scara talked about players we had no chance of signing, players from Bolton shouldn't fit in to that list. We have managed to beat both Liverpool and Arsenal to numerous signings. All I know is, we were linked with Cahill in the press long before Chelsea.

What signings have we ACTUALLY beaten Arsenal to when there have been too similar offers on the table? The only recent one was Vertonghen, but that was because there wasn't too similar offers on the table. We wanted to sign him as a CB, Arsenal wanted to sign him as a DM. He didn't want to play DM so chose us.

What other players have we actually signed when Arsenal have also gone in with a similar offer? I'll tell you how many, NONE. As much as it pains me to say it.

Liverpool we did beat to many a signing over the last few years, but that's only because they were floundering in upper midtable with what looked like a poor quality squad and weren't prepared to match the wages we were offering. I'm pretty sure we would not be able to beat Liverpool to a signing right now, as we saw with Lovren in the summer.

 

[scaramanga]

That really isn't the point. Scara talked about players we had no chance of signing, players from Bolton shouldn't fit in to that list. We have managed to beat both Liverpool and Arsenal to numerous signings. All I know is, we were linked with Cahill in the press long before Chelsea.

Players from Bolton that go to Chelsea are definitely out of our reach - players don't get offers from us and Chelsea and then choose us.

Your only other suggestion was Remy - I'm yet to be convinced he'd have made any kind of difference at all. He's certainly shown himself to be a good benchwarmer at a top team, but I don't think we needed any more of those.

 

[jimmyb]

That's the Dutch for you

k:

 

[jimmyb]

That really isn't the point. Scara talked about players we had no chance of signing, players from Bolton shouldn't fit in to that list. We have managed to beat both Liverpool and Arsenal to numerous signings. All I know is, we were linked with Cahill in the press long before Chelsea.

That's another issue altogether and not what I'm talking about.

The main thread of this discussion has focused on whether or not Spurs would have qualified for the CL in 2011-12 had we signed Harry's first choice targets. And in the instance of Cahill, I'd say that it's at least debatable that, at the time, he was no more reliable a Premier League defender than Nelsen.

 

[Finney Is Back]

That's another issue altogether and not what I'm talking about.

The main thread of this discussion has focused on whether or not Spurs would have qualified for the CL in 2011-12 had we signed Harry's first choice targets. And in the instance of Cahill, I'd say that it's at least debatable that, at the time, he was no more reliable a Premier League defender than Nelsen.

I probably agree there. Tevez however....

 

[jimmyb]

I probably agree there. Tevez however....

Absolutely.

But, even though I know you disagree, I don't believe that Tevez was ever a realistic target. Even if City had been prepared to sell to us despite us being one of only two title rivals they had at that point of the season, we'd never have been able to offer him a big enough wages package.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Absolutely.

But, even though I know you disagree, I don't believe that Tevez was ever a realistic target. Even if City had been prepared to sell to us despite us being one of only two title rivals they had at that point of the season, we'd never have been able to offer him a big enough wages package.

I think that if a deal had been done then it would've been a loan.... Emirates Marketing Project would've wanted to have been seen to back their manager and send a message out to the rest of the squad and we would've been scared stiff of the fee and wages long term (and Tevez probably also wouldn't have wanted to come long term). Anyway I guess it's all speculation now.

Onwards and upwards (or perhaps just 'onwards' as the case has been for us).

To bring this topic onto a more current topic (and completely unrelated to the title of the thread) what sort of funds/help do you think Levy will give Pochettino in January? Do you think the manager will be able to go out and plug the central midfield shaped hole in the team?

 

[DubaiSpur]

How would you or any of us know how long any club is interested in any player before making a move? All we know is that when Spurs finally made a move for Cahill, Chelsea immediately followed suit (or perhaps even made their move just before us).

Besides all which, in the specific context of whether signing Cahill would have meant qualifying for the Champions League in 2011-12 (which is what this discussion is about, after all), it's arguable that Ryan Nelsen was no less dependable and capable an addition to the squad than Cahill would have been. Of course, Cahill had relative youth on his side and has since matured into an excellent Premier League central defender. But at the time, there was little to choose between them.

No. I understand your angle, but..........no. Just no.

 

[jimmyb]

No. I understand your angle, but..........no. Just no.

Actually, yes.

Cahill was very far from the finished article back then. Nelsen, while limited, was a very solid, hugely experienced defender. There was little to choose between them at the time, although Cahill would obviously have been the far superior long term signing.

 

[jimmyb]

I think that if a deal had been done then it would've been a loan.... Emirates Marketing Project would've wanted to have been seen to back their manager and send a message out to the rest of the squad and we would've been scared stiff of the fee and wages long term (and Tevez probably also wouldn't have wanted to come long term). Anyway I guess it's all speculation now.

Onwards and upwards (or perhaps just 'onwards' as the case has been for us).

To bring this topic onto a more current topic (and completely unrelated to the title of the thread) what sort of funds/help do you think Levy will give Pochettino in January? Do you think the manager will be able to go out and plug the central midfield shaped hole in the team?

I can't imagine that City would more have been any keener to loan Tevez to a title rival than they were to sell to a title rival.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Actually, yes.

Cahill was very far from the finished article back then. Nelsen, while limited, was a very solid, hugely experienced defender. There was little to choose between them at the time, although Cahill would obviously have been the far superior long term signing.

Cahill was easily the match of Nelsen when it came to decision-making, leadership and defensive nous. He was eons ahead of Nelsen even then when it came to stamina, athleticism, pace, strength and durability.

He was the superior signing. We failed to close it, and substituted him with a goddamn free transfer from Blackburn.

I can see that you're probably going to counter by insisting that Nelsen was probably the wiser of the two (due to his experience, perhaps), but I saw and still see no evidence of Nelsen being any wiser than Cahill was even at that stage.

 

[jimmyb]

Cahill was easily the match of Nelsen when it came to decision-making, leadership and defensive nous. He was eons ahead of Nelsen even then when it came to stamina, athleticism, pace, strength and durability.

He was the superior signing. We failed to close it, and substituted him with a goddamn free transfer from Blackburn.

I can see that you're probably going to counter by insisting that Nelsen was probably the wiser of the two (due to his experience, perhaps), but I saw and still see no evidence of Nelsen being any wiser than Cahill was even at that stage.

I suspect that you're speaking with the benefit of hindsight and about the player that Cahill has become rather than the player that he was back then.

Regardless, our respective opinions on the qualities of the two players at that time are merely subjective. We're not going to agree so no point taking it any further.

 

[billyiddo]

I think that if a deal had been done then it would've been a loan.... Emirates Marketing Project would've wanted to have been seen to back their manager and send a message out to the rest of the squad and we would've been scared stiff of the fee and wages long term (and Tevez probably also wouldn't have wanted to come long term). Anyway I guess it's all speculation now.

Onwards and upwards (or perhaps just 'onwards' as the case has been for us).

To bring this topic onto a more current topic (and completely unrelated to the title of the thread) what sort of funds/help do you think Levy will give Pochettino in January? Do you think the manager will be able to go out and plug the central midfield shaped hole in the team?

One loan allowed between clubs in the Premier League - we already had Adebayor from City

 

[DubaiSpur]

I suspect that you're speaking with the benefit of hindsight and about the player that Cahill has become rather than the player that he was back then.

Regardless, our respective opinions on the qualities of the two players at that time are merely subjective. We're not going to agree so no point taking it any further.

Hey, I wanted him in January 2012 too: was gutted when we ended up with Nelsen instead, and vented on this forum itself if I remember correctly. But yes, this is a subjective argument: however, a statement arguing for the viability of Nelsen as a better signing than Cahill is almost certain to be disputed at some point, so I did the honours fairly early on.

 

[jimmyb]

Hey, I wanted him in January 2012 too: was gutted when we ended up with Nelsen instead, and vented on this forum itself if I remember correctly. But yes, this is a subjective argument: however, a statement arguing for the viability of Nelsen as a better signing than Cahill is almost certain to be disputed at some point, so I did the honours fairly early on.

I don't deny that Cahill would have been a far better long term signing!

I'd love to have him at the club now.

 

[thfcsteff]

I suspect that you're speaking with the benefit of hindsight and about the player that Cahill has become rather than the player that he was back then.

Regardless, our respective opinions on the qualities of the two players at that time are merely subjective. We're not going to agree so no point taking it any further.

Agreed.
He was not the finished article back then and many viewed it as a gamble. Which is when we see the full issue with having a manager in charge who professed he was off in the summer for other pastures. Take out the eye off the ball stuff, just looking at the blunt fact that we had 5 months left with him in charge (so thought) how much of a transfer budget would be spent in January when you're not sure an incoming manager sees the 'same potential' in a young player? Especially when the squad generally need only a couple extras. Let us not forget the mis-management of Pienaar, a player who for me could've made all the difference during that wobbly March/April had he not been frozen out and loaned back to the junior dippers (obviously Pienaar would not have been in defense LOL, just making a point)...

 

[DubaiSpur]

Agreed.
He was not the finished article back then and many viewed it as a gamble. Which is when we see the full issue with having a manager in charge who professed he was off in the summer for other pastures. Take out the eye off the ball stuff, just looking at the blunt fact that we had 5 months left with him in charge (so thought) how much of a transfer budget would be spent in January when you're not sure an incoming manager sees the 'same potential' in a young player? Especially when the squad generally need only a couple extras. Let us not forget the mis-management of Pienaar, a player who for me could've made all the difference during that wobbly March/April had he not been frozen out and loaned back to the junior dippers (obviously Pienaar would not have been in defense LOL, just making a point)...

Like I said, I though he would have been a great signing then too, and was gutted when we got Nelsen instead: that isn't exactly hindsight offering me a superior insight into Cahill's qualities. As for the 'manager leaving, so cheapness necessary' argument, we're just going around in circles again. Ignoring for a moment that we treated every manager post-Harry the same dismissive way (completely invalidating the premise that we were keeping our powder dry to give to the next bloke), giving up on a genuinely serious tilt at the title because the 'next bloke' might not have liked the signings made to pursue the dream is symptomatic of the ills of this club, and is something we should seriously be talking about more than we are at present, feeble 'we had Defoe and Daws and Gallas' rebuttals be damned.

And besides, I doubt AVB would have wrung his hands in despair if we ended up with Tevez and Cahill as opposed to....erm, no one, because the signings we made instead of those two (Nelsen and Saha) were released before the 2012-2013 season anyway, and seeing as we weren't really interested in giving AVB what he needed in the summer window, I don't think he'd have been too upset heading into the new season with those two in the side instead of their poorer analogues, signed later (Dempsey, ultimately Chiriches).

 

[jimmyb]

Like I said, I though he would have been a great signing then too, and was gutted when we got Nelsen instead: that isn't exactly hindsight offering me a superior insight into Cahill's qualities. As for the 'manager leaving, so cheapness necessary' argument, we're just going around in circles again. Ignoring for a moment that we treated every manager post-Harry the same dismissive way (completely invalidating the premise that we were keeping our powder dry to give to the next bloke), giving up on a genuinely serious tilt at the title because the 'next bloke' might not have liked the signings made to pursue the dream is symptomatic of the ills of this club, and is something we should seriously be talking about more than we are at present, feeble 'we had Defoe and Daws and Gallas' rebuttals be damned.

And besides, I doubt AVB would have wrung his hands in despair if we ended up with Tevez and Cahill as opposed to....erm, no one, because the signings we made instead of those two (Nelsen and Saha) were released before the 2012-2013 season anyway, and seeing as we weren't really interested in giving AVB what he needed in the summer window, I don't think he'd have been too upset heading into the new season with those two in the side instead of their poorer analogues, signed later (Dempsey, ultimately Chiriches).

The failure to sign Cahill had f all to do with giving anything up and everything to do with the fact that the player was only interested in signing for Chelsea.

 

[thfcsteff]

Like I said, I though he would have been a great signing then too, and was gutted when we got Nelsen instead: that isn't exactly hindsight offering me a superior insight into Cahill's qualities. As for the 'manager leaving, so cheapness necessary' argument, we're just going around in circles again. Ignoring for a moment that we treated every manager post-Harry the same dismissive way (completely invalidating the premise that we were keeping our powder dry to give to the next bloke), giving up on a genuinely serious tilt at the title because the 'next bloke' might not have liked the signings made to pursue the dream is symptomatic of the ills of this club, and is something we should seriously be talking about more than we are at present, feeble 'we had Defoe and Daws and Gallas' rebuttals be damned.

And besides, I doubt AVB would have wrung his hands in despair if we ended up with Tevez and Cahill as opposed to....erm, no one, because the signings we made instead of those two (Nelsen and Saha) were released before the 2012-2013 season anyway, and seeing as we weren't really interested in giving AVB what he needed in the summer window, I don't think he'd have been too upset heading into the new season with those two in the side instead of their poorer analogues, signed later (Dempsey, ultimately Chiriches).

I'm not concerned with potential disagreement of the point, I'm concerned that you don't see the point being made. Everyone knew Cahill had potential and might well have been worth the 12-15 million punt. However, given the instability of the manager and the reality of our transfer budget, who was going to make the call to spend 12-15 mill on a player the current manager might not have been around to manage? Put it this way, if we had a DoF back THEN, perhaps he WOULD'VE been signed. But without one, without that system in place, it was never going to happen. Ditto Tevez, which was frankly a pathetic thing for H to throw out there on his 'wanted' list.

As for AVB, I think you can safely say that he wanted to work only with players he had fully vetted. Signings? Tevez? if he had problems with Ade, I ask you! As for Cahill, by no means a guarantee whatsoever.

The other discussion points are ones I tend to agree with i.e. not backing managers, but that '12-13 January window is a different story for me and always will be.