• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Antonio Conte - officially NOT the coach of THFC

glorygloryeze said:
I have to say the football we are watching is absolutely dire; the players look like rob ots that are scared to try anything progressive/creative.
This again feels like how the players looked under Jose and we know how negative his approach, tactics etc was.
Feels like all players are scared of doing something not pre-prescribed from training drills etc and also looks like Conte is being found put by most of the PL managers in the top half.

As much as i'd question Levy/ENIC in the transfers market overall they HAVE made a lot transfers since January and whilst we can look at the players and say they might not be good enough to challenge for the title in the end, did any of you really predict that at this stage in the season we would be getting so easily schooled by many of our competition?

If Conte is going to get plaudits for our run-in last season to clinch fourth he has to get a lot of criticism for our dire and cowardly football that we have mostly been serving up all season. Time for him to coach the team and not be so easily schooled by the likes of Ten Hag, Arteta, Emery etc
Click to expand...
I think you make some good points.

The problem with coming with such a precise plan and set tactics and automations, giving the players strict guidelines and a message of believe in me, is if it doesn't go right it really is on you.

I really think Conte is more of a sum of its individuals type approach, I don't think we are going to get a greater than a sum of its parts outcome. And that's fine, we can get him the individuals he desires but (as he keeps saying) it will take time. The problem is, is this the only route to resolve problems or break negative patterns we are in? Just as it was new recruits that pushed us on last January? Does he possess any more tools to develop a player, use, mould a tool already in his toolbox? Some other managers are putting him to shame in this area.

BUT it is early days, barely just over a year, and it's kind of working. It's working better than Liverpool and Chelsea at the moment. He'll, even Pep lost to Brentford and draw with the mighty Everton in his last two home games so ....
 
billyiddo said:
I don't think we'll spend any more or less with different managers, it's about the profile of player we are going to target and which managers are most likely to succeed with them.
Click to expand...

This .. we will spend whatever the club generates, which with stadium will be a bigger number than in the past and likely significantly more than anyone outside top 7

We will still need an occasional promising player to come through, we will still need to take risks, partially because of budget and partially because the very best won't come to us even if we did have the money (they have other options)
 
thfcsteff said:
I don't think we have spent the mythical 150 million on players. Not even 100. We had a budget before that 150 ( not huge but fairly significant) and we made approx 33 mill on Bergwijn and CCV.
Click to expand...
It's not mythical:D

It was there, available, to use.

Paratici is the one spending it. No-one is stopping him.
 
LemonadeMoney said:
Or, us fans can stop losing our brick, and support the players, the manager, and the board, rather than making them all doubt what they are doing because of our fudging bricky fan base!
Click to expand...

I wish it were that simple. I am pretty calm mate. Sadly, there are always agitators at the club, both outside and within. They're whipping it up right now.
 
Raziel said:
Totally agree, but the fact that one of the "best" coaches in the world is utterly dependent on Kulusevski (a very good player, but he isn't Mbappe/Ronadlo) remains shocking.

Lets really look at the Villa game (because this is where to me the right players/investment arguments being used to defend him break down, we are better than Villa, we spend more money than Villa, etc.)
- He could have played an extra man in the midfield, e.g. Sarr/Skipp, giving one of the CMs more license to go forward and attack at right time, while allowing better control of game.
- He could have played Sess/Spence from beginning, which combined with above choice would have allowed for two attacking options (Perisic & Gil) to be on bench (his complaint)
- He could have gone 4 at the back, either from beginning of game or when we were chasing.

Honestly the Villa game smacks of Conte spent the week planning for Kulusevski to be part of the team, and when he got injured, he just refused to adapt, could not adapt? and just sat back and watched a train wreck ..
Click to expand...

I don't disagree but we know who we signed when we got him. I have many things we could do to win games, but Conte basically has one or two things he does. 3-4-3 or 3-5-2. I think he went 4-2-4 once or twice, but generally he sticks to those formations.

Royal would be good in a 4 man defence. We have the players to play 4-2-3-1 (albeit not ideal players but we could do it) but he won't do it because he never has.

I gave up expecting change from him.

With regards to build, I don't disagree. We don't have any intention of mega-backing. It would make more sense for all concerned unless Antonio is going to have an epihany and become a project manager...
 
LemonadeMoney said:
His grasp of the English language is bedwetting gold.
Click to expand...

It is, but equally he knows (or thinks) that Levy needs him more than he needs Levy/Spurs. Hence he constantly plays on the short contract thing. I wouldnt particularly care either way if the football wasn't as eye-goudgingly bad

Would be nice to be able to fast forward past the next couple transfer windows. Come the start of next season, and assuming we spent an acceptable amount of £££, if the performances aren't significantly better than the last few months then we'd have to get in a manager who's teams are a bit more entertaining
 
thfcsteff said:
For a start some of it was used to turn Romero's loan to signing? It was not the 150 mill we were PR'd to see.
Click to expand...

The 150mil was never pr'd the way people seemed to want to take it - iirc the wording was more about allowing us to do business without having to rely on sales first and it was never implied to mean 150m being made available on top of what we already had budgeted, it was just a way to bring in players as early as possible. There was also a caveat about other football related expenditure.

I said this at the time when certain posters were talking as though we had the 150m + the usual money available + whatever we made from sales.
 
This was the statement to clear up any confusion.

Tottenham Hotspur Limited (the “Club” or “Spurs”) has, today, Tuesday 24 May 2022, agreed a capital increase of up to £150m from majority shareholder, ENIC Sports Inc (“ENIC”), via the issue of convertible A Shares and accompanying warrants.

The equity injection provides the Premier League Club with greater financial flexibility and the ability to further invest on and off the pitch.

The investment represents permanent capital, with no ongoing interest cost to the Club, and which may be drawn in tranches until the end of the year. The Club’s independent directors have benefited from its majority shareholder’s ability to invest directly, swiftly and without the extensive due diligence and documentation involved in third party funding.

Under the agreed structure the A Shares can be converted into ordinary shares. The number of ordinary shares granted to ENIC as a result of the capital increase will vary depending on when the A Ordinary Shares are converted, when the warrants are exercised and valuations at the time. If drawn in full, and based on assumptions regarding the above, ENIC’s ownership of the Club could see an increase from its current level of 85.6% to circa 87.5% on conversion. Any dilutive impact is dependent on the number of shares granted and will be shared by all shareholders proportionately and principally by ENIC, the majority shareholder.

— Statement, Tottenham Hotspur
 
billyiddo said:
The 150mil was never pr'd the way people seemed to want to take it - iirc the wording was more about allowing us to do business without having to rely on sales first and it was never implied to mean 150m being made available on top of what we already had budgeted, it was just a way to bring in players as early as possible. There was also a caveat about other football related expenditure.

I said this at the time when certain posters were talking as though we had the 150m + the usual money available + whatever we made from sales.
Click to expand...

Agreed in general, but the principle definition of the transaction was pot-boiled down for mass media i.e. not 'decluttered', and as such (given where we are isn the world) the narrative was both set and allowed to run. Fine print was in there. The blast trumpet focused on the figure. It was cleverly played Billy, and no-one at the club stepped up to make sure the full scope was clear. In the end, we did not buy beyond our usual practices bar Richarlison, who ended up costing around 25 million if you factor in the Bergwijn/CCV sales. I also don't believe we ever drew down the final 50? Complete side-note, I wonder where Paratici is? I wonder if the Italian stuff is weighing him down somehow???
 
AdamB said:
It is, but equally he knows (or thinks) that Levy needs him more than he needs Levy/Spurs. Hence he constantly plays on the short contract thing. I wouldnt particularly care either way if the football wasn't as eye-goudgingly bad

Would be nice to be able to fast forward past the next couple transfer windows. Come the start of next season, and assuming we spent an acceptable amount of £££, if the performances aren't significantly better than the last few months then we'd have to get in a manager who's teams are a bit more entertaining
Click to expand...


I am not sure why more people aren't identifying this issue? Because whenever Daniel feels "challenged" he likes to "win"...the proof is out there. I question why he enjoys a good rumble with such macho managers? I would like to be wrong. I really would. Here's to hoping I am and that it is all just flimflam!
 
thfcsteff said:
Agreed in general, but the principle definition of the transaction was pot-boiled down for mass media i.e. not 'decluttered', and as such (given where we are isn the world) the narrative was both set and allowed to run. Fine print was in there. The blast trumpet focused on the figure. It was cleverly played Billy, and no-one at the club stepped up to make sure the full scope was clear. In the end, we did not buy beyond our usual practices bar Richarlison, who ended up costing around 25 million if you factor in the Bergwijn/CCV sales. I also don't believe we ever drew down the final 50? Complete side-note, I wonder where Paratici is? I wonder if the Italian stuff is weighing him down somehow???
Click to expand...

Haven't heard anything about the other £50m but i'd be surprised if it wasn't drawn as then enic wouldn't increase their share in the club.
 
thfcsteff said:
For a start some of it was used to turn Romero's loan to signing? It was not the 150 mill we were PR'd to see.
Click to expand...
They haven’t drawn down £150m yet
It’s £100m so far
Add that to the money they brought in and it’s pretty much what we spent or committed too
What isn’t clear at all is what we had as profit to spend from last seasons income
 
thfcsteff said:
Agreed in general, but the principle definition of the transaction was pot-boiled down for mass media i.e. not 'decluttered', and as such (given where we are isn the world) the narrative was both set and allowed to run. Fine print was in there. The blast trumpet focused on the figure. It was cleverly played Billy, and no-one at the club stepped up to make sure the full scope was clear. In the end, we did not buy beyond our usual practices bar Richarlison, who ended up costing around 25 million if you factor in the Bergwijn/CCV sales. I also don't believe we ever drew down the final 50? Complete side-note, I wonder where Paratici is? I wonder if the Italian stuff is weighing him down somehow???
Click to expand...

I wouldn't ever expect to see the club speak out in the media once they had released the rather matter-of-fact/technical shares chat initially released to inform of the action taken. They said money was invested it which would give us greater flexibility in the market and then explained breifly the impact on shares (which goes over my head) i don't see anything in what Lillbaz posted that suggests they were implying that what they were doing was to be construed how it was in some quarters and as previoisly stated i don't see why they would have to speak out to correct how sime had interpreted it. Like i say not really in their style to do so.
 
billyiddo said:
I wouldn't ever expect to see the club speak out in the media once they had released the rather matter-of-fact/technical shares chat initially released to inform of the action taken. They said money was invested it which would give us greater flexibility in the market and then explained breifly the impact on shares (which goes over my head) i don't see anything in what Lillbaz posted that suggests they were imply that they were doing was to be construed how it was in some quarters.
Click to expand...
It’s money into the business
It’s equity for them by diluting what exists already
But then it gives us cash to spend on whatever they choose
One thing I never get it’s how many fans equate turnover to cash rather than profit, and then profit to cash and spending
I’ve argued so many times with people that our turnover means nothing without profit and having a turnover league table means very little
 
Raziel said:
Totally agree, but the fact that one of the "best" coaches in the world is utterly dependent on Kulusevski (a very good player, but he isn't Mbappe/Ronadlo) remains shocking.

Lets really look at the Villa game (because this is where to me the right players/investment arguments being used to defend him break down, we are better than Villa, we spend more money than Villa, etc.)
- He could have played an extra man in the midfield, e.g. Sarr/Skipp, giving one of the CMs more license to go forward and attack at right time, while allowing better control of game.
- He could have played Sess/Spence from beginning, which combined with above choice would have allowed for two attacking options (Perisic & Gil) to be on bench (his complaint)
- He could have gone 4 at the back, either from beginning of game or when we were chasing.

Honestly the Villa game smacks of Conte spent the week planning for Kulusevski to be part of the team, and when he got injured, he just refused to adapt, could not adapt? and just sat back and watched a train wreck ..
Click to expand...

Agree with all of this, it's all well and good having a system but that system clearly isn't working and we don't have the players for it yet every week he refuses to adapt it. It's so obvious we need a 3 in midfield in some games or a more conventional 4 at the back but it never happens.

The only manager I've seen stick so rigidly to a system that wasn't working was Pep in his 1st season but I guess he always knew the money was coming and at least they still played good football that season, our play is absolutely turgid.

Our transfer policy also needs to be looked at, Patrici has got deals done but the squad is very lopsided. Take RB, we have Doherty for 12m, Royal for 25m and Spence for 12m. That's 50m on 3 RBs yet we're looking at spending another 35m on Porro. That will be nearly 100m on RBs, how on earth has this been allowed to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back