Christian Benteke

[DubaiSpur]

should we go for him that hard if over paying for him leaves less money to strengthen other areas?

If Poch feels that that's a sacrifice worth making, by all means. It isn't likely that we'll end this window without our by-now customary profit anyway, so what's Poch got to lose? One less makeweight? In exchange for a top-class player he really wants, I think it wouldn't be the hardest choice to make. Last year, for example: would Poch have preferred Davies, Vorm, Fazio and Stambouli over simply, say, Schneiderlin + retaining the players we sold to get those guys in and make our profit? I'd say yes, given how underwhelming most of those players have turned out to be (and this coming from a converted fan of Fazio, for what it's worth), but crucially, let him make the damn call. I'm not sure people understand precisely how ludicrous a prospect it must be to move from Southampton, a club of limited financial means, to Tottenham Hotspur, one of the most valuable clubs on the planet....and then be forced to sign the apparently earmarked cheap replacement to a S'oton player because THFC is too cheap/terrified of risk to sanction anything more expensive.

 

[indianspur]

If Poch feels that that's a sacrifice worth making, by all means. It isn't likely that we'll end this window without our by-now customary profit anyway, so what's Poch got to lose? One less makeweight? In exchange for a top-class player he really wants, I think it wouldn't be the hardest choice to make. Last year, for example: would Poch have preferred Davies, Vorm, Fazio and Stambouli over simply, say, Schneiderlin + retaining the players we sold to get those guys in and make our profit? I'd say yes, given how underwhelming most of those players have turned out to be (and this coming from a converted fan of Fazio, for what it's worth), but crucially, let him make the damn call. I'm not sure people understand precisely how ludicrous a prospect it must be to move from Southampton, a club of limited financial means, to Tottenham Hotspur, one of the most valuable clubs on the planet....and then be forced to sign the apparently earmarked cheap replacement to a S'oton player because THFC is too cheap/terrified of risk to sanction anything more expensive.

Poch knew what he was getting into.....if he leaves and then starts crying that he wasnt backed with the big money he was promised then he will rightly be called a liar

He knew he had to work with the squad he inherited, he knew that he would be allowed to spend what we make from sales, he knew that a stadium is in the process of being constructed so finances will be tight for the time being.

he moved from Southampton because we are a step up. We are a bigger club, more prestigious, and he knows if he does well then he can again step up to an even bigger club. Pretty simple really

 

[billyiddo]

If Poch feels that that's a sacrifice worth making, by all means. It isn't likely that we'll end this window without our by-now customary profit anyway, so what's Poch got to lose? One less makeweight? In exchange for a top-class player he really wants, I think it wouldn't be the hardest choice to make. Last year, for example: would Poch have preferred Davies, Vorm, Fazio and Stambouli over simply, say, Schneiderlin + retaining the players we sold to get those guys in and make our profit? I'd say yes, given how underwhelming most of those players have turned out to be (and this coming from a converted fan of Fazio, for what it's worth), but crucially, let him make the damn call. I'm not sure people understand precisely how ludicrous a prospect it must be to move from Southampton, a club of limited financial means, to Tottenham Hotspur, one of the most valuable clubs on the planet....and then be forced to sign the apparently earmarked cheap replacement to a S'oton player because THFC is too cheap/terrified of risk to sanction anything more expensive.

a lot of conjecture in there (as usual )

facts are we've been linked to Benteke (rightly or wrongly) and beyond that we don't know how high of a priority target he is seen as or indeed whether he is a Pochettino target or not. Pochettino may want the money spent elsewhere, he may want Benteke at all costs even if to the detriment of other positions, he may even want us to fund the sale by selling another key player (Lloris for example) ultimately we don't know, what i do know is that unless Benteke is signed you will now use it as 'proof' that Pochettino isn't being backed...

 

[DubaiSpur]

Poch knew what he was getting into.....if he leaves and then starts crying that he wasnt backed with the big money he was promised then he will rightly be called a liar

He knew he had to work with the squad he inherited, he knew that he would be allowed to spend what we make from sales, he knew that a stadium is in the process of being constructed so finances will be tight for the time being.

he moved from Southampton because we are a step up. We are a bigger club, more prestigious, and he knows if he does well then he can again step up to an even bigger club. Pretty simple really

I certainly won't be calling him a liar. Juande, Harry, AVB...all three men were sacked and then immediately put the honeyed PR lies about what they'd been told and what they'd agreed on to the sword. It's pretty clear that we sell ourselves as ambitious and promise backing to our managers that never materialises. In light of this, who in his or her right mind would criticise Poch for falling into the same damn trap (well, apart from perhaps for being a bit dim)?

a lot of conjecture in there (as usual )

facts are we've been linked to Benteke (rightly or wrongly) and beyond that we don't know how high of a priority target he is seen as or indeed whether he is a Pochettino target or not. Pochettino may want the money spent elsewhere, he may want Benteke at all costs even if to the detriment of other positions, he may even want us to fund the sale by selling another key player (Lloris for example) ultimately we don't know, what i do know is that unless Benteke is signed you will now use it as 'proof' that Pochettino isn't being backed...

Part of it comes straight from you, you know. That bit about Stambouli being Schneiderlin's replacement at S'oton: I only picked up on that because Jord claimed that you were the one who put that factoid out there. So, not all one way at all.

And bill...don't put words into my mouth, please. I don't know if we really want Benteke: certainly, we aren't being liked with him with anywhere near the intensity that followed our links to Schneiderlin last summer. If he doesn't sign, I won't take that as proof that Poch wasn't backed this window: however, if I see concrete, sustained links to a series of high-profile, class players, and then we end the window with a) a large profit, and b) cheap bargain bin replacements for those said players.....then I certainly will take issue with that. Overall, the point I'm making is the same one Pirate55 was trying to make: if Poch wants someone, back him to the hilt and go for that man, not his cheapo low-risk replacement. What he wants, and what he doesn't want.... you're right, we won't know until the tell-all interview (a la AVB) that he'll probably give when he leaves. But we can surmise, based on his actions (sidelining Stambouli, possibly selling him), that he himself isn't too enamoured with the bargain bins he's being handed. And I don't think it's fair on him to expect him to grin and bear it. I said this last summer, and I'll say it again: we have a good manager in charge, who can achieve great things if backed. So do it: back him, as Levy suggested he would in his otherwise generally bland end-of-season letter.

 

[billyiddo]

@DubaiSpur

And bill...don't put words into my mouth, please

fair, low blow on my part

asides from rumored interested and a rumored bid of 10m our interest in Schneiderlin is just that - rumor, no one from either commented on it so that's all it can be seen as. all the pieces fit though granted and yes that Stambouli factoid did come from me (i believe) but it was just passed on from the written press and used as nothing more than theory to be considered. does it mean that we signed Stambouli because he was going to be Schneiderlins replacement for Poch at Southampton, no- but it's possible...

 

[milo]

A) An uncertain designation to make at the best of times: ten million pounds for Schneiderlin being the absolute maximum price we could pay before we went into 'unaffordable' territory, in a window where we made a profit on player trading, as per usual? Who decided that, and was it reasonable?

B) A whole team full of dirt-cheap stopgaps won't make a pretty sight, even though our profits in the windows will probably be eminently pleasing to look at to a few select people.

C) The problem arises when you already have a manager who does his utmost to develop the youngsters already present at the club: how fair is it to him or to the club itself to label even the few first-choice players he does want as 'unavailable and unaffordable', preferring instead to throw bargain bin replacements his way and laugh as the profits pile up? Again, if the same bargain bins aren't played at all and then flogged off by the manager, can anyone really blame him for taking that course of action? I can't: the chairman's been grossly unfair to him, I wouldn't expect any different from the manager's side.

The problem is that you use supposition to support your argument. And you are ignoring the fact that a) we never made a bid for Schneiderlin b) by the time the stories linking us with him had begun to heat up Southampton were coming under increasing pressure from their fans and manager not to sell any more players c) for all you know, Poch might have thought that he represented poor value and suggested Stambouli as an alternative.

 

[DubaiSpur]

@DubaiSpur

asides from rumored interested and a rumored bid of 10m our interest in Schneiderlin is just that - rumor, no one from either commented on it so that's all it can be seen as. all the pieces fit though granted and yes that Stambouli factoid did come from me (i believe) but it was just passed on from the written press and used as nothing more than theory to be considered. does it mean that we signed Stambouli because he was going to be Schneiderlins replacement for Poch at Southampton, no- but it's possible...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-after-he-claims-he-is-not-ready-to-play.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-Mateo-Musacchio-and-Morgan-Schneiderlin.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...h-encouragement-over-Morgan-Schneiderlin.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...uthampton-midfielder-Morgan-Schneiderlin.html

Koeman literally said we were 'pressing' the player, Schneiderlin himself tweeted his discomfort with the situation last summer. The Telegraph, one of the more reputable outlets out there, has consistently maintained that we never improved on a single 10 million bid we made for the guy. As for that Stambouli factoid, I assumed you were ITK and took it at face value (I dislike ITKs, but ones on the forum I frequent are okay, imo ): either way, a cheap replacement for a player Poch clearly wanted is now a sidelined player possibly on his way out, so the point made about insinuating cause and effect still stands.

fair, low blow on my part

Hey, no worries mate.

The problem is that you use supposition to support your argument. And you are ignoring the fact that a) we never made a bid for Schneiderlin b) by the time the stories linking us with him had begun to heat up Southampton were coming under increasing pressure from their fans and manager not to sell any more players c) for all you know, Poch might have thought that he represented poor value and suggested Stambouli as an alternative.

See above, and again, re: Stambouli, that certainly isn't a viable scenario given how he's been used this past season, and will be an impossible one if he's shoved out the door to Watford or whomever.

 

[Jordinho]

The 10 million bid came from the belief that he had a release clause. Since that wasn't the case and they had no interest in selling to us for anything less than silly money I don't see the problem in not making another official bid, at least not one we know of.

What if Stambouli was indeed signed on Poch's recommendation? Players get judged and people blamed before they've even played for us. (see also Fazio, Davies). Opinions and assumptions are then bandied about as facts forever after.

 

[billyiddo]

@DubaiSpur

ok so from that we can take that there was genuine interest, point taken.

im loathe to take this any further right now as it will descend in to hypotheticals but ultimately i don't think failing to sign a player we had interest in automatically means the manager wasn't backed and im of the opinion that you're dressing things up to suit your opinion, rather than letting the information do the talking.

till next time

 

[DubaiSpur]

The 10 million bid came from the belief that he had a release clause. Since that wasn't the case and they had no interest in selling to us for anything less than silly money I don't see the problem in not making another official bid, at least not one we know of.

What if Stambouli was indeed signed on Poch's recommendation? Players get judged and people blamed before they've even played for us. (see also Fazio, Davies). Opinions and assumptions are then bandied about as facts forever after.

A player, signed on Poch's recommendation....is sidelined, used extremely sparingly, and may (or may not) be on his way out of the club after one underwhelming season. It cannot be because of his match performances (which were..average, certainly not worse than some of the other players we've played this season) or his attitude in training (because Lloris has come out and said that Stambouli gives his all in training and for the team, hardly the type of player Poch would grow tired of). So why was this player Poch supposedly recommended used so sparingly, and if he does head off to Watford or whomever, why was he sold so quickly?

It isn't feasible to hold that position, mate. You can see that, surely.

 

[milo]

re: Stambouli, that certainly isn't a viable scenario given how he's been used this past season, and will be an impossible one if he's shoved out the door to Watford or whomever.

Why do you think that? Is it not possible that Poch's second choice was Bentaleb and/or Mason and that Stambouli was chosen by Poch to provide cover? Alternatively, he could have been signed as an affordable stopgap or maybe he just did not settle as hoped or his performances did not meet Poch's expectations.

 

[DubaiSpur]

@DubaiSpur

ok so from that we can take that there was genuine interest, point taken.

im loathe to take this any further right now as it will descend in to hypotheticals but ultimately i don't think failing to sign a player we had interest in automatically means the manager wasn't backed and im of the opinion that you're dressing things up to suit your opinion, rather than letting the information do the talking.

till next time

Fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion. As for dressing things up to suit my own opinion....I'm not the one who's claiming that signing a goddamn scout for some tiny compensation fee is 'backing' Poch, you know (not saying you are, either).

Why do you think that? Is it not possible that Poch's second choice was Bentaleb and/or Mason and that Stambouli was chosen by Poch to provide cover? Alternatively, he could have been signed as an affordable stopgap or maybe he just did not settle as hoped or his performances did not meet Poch's expectations.

Poch wanted Schneiderlin. Poch got Stambouli, a man who almost never played and who looks like he's on his way out after just one season at the club. Like I mentioned in my previous post, there's likely nothing wrong with his attitude or his overall performance levels, and a shove out the door is unwarranted given that fact. Yet, he seems down and out.

I doubt that's what Poch had in mind when he asked for Schneiderlin: getting a bargain bin player who ended up rarely playing and who looks (looks) like he's going to leave after just one season. What is that other than a failure to back the man? And is that something Poch would have wanted? No, and no, imo.

 

[Jordinho]

A player, signed on Poch's recommendation....is sidelined, used extremely sparingly, and may (or may not) be on his way out of the club after one underwhelming season. It cannot be because of his match performances (which were..average, certainly not worse than some of the other players we've played this season) or his attitude in training (because Lloris has come out and said that Stambouli gives his all in training and for the team, hardly the type of player Poch would grow tired of). So why was this player Poch supposedly recommended used so sparingly, and if he does head off to Watford or whomever, why was he sold so quickly?

It isn't feasible to hold that position, mate. You can see that, surely.

Do I need to dig up all the players signed by the likes of Ferguson or Redknapp that barely played? Sometimes things don't work out as planned and quite frankly, none of us knows what the plan was.

 

[milo]

Poch wanted Schneiderlin. Poch got Stambouli, a man who almost never played and who looks like he's on his way out after just one season at the club. Like I mentioned in my previous post, there's likely nothing wrong with his attitude or his overall performance levels, and a shove out the door is unwarranted given that fact. Yet, he seems down and out.

I doubt that's what Poch had in mind when he asked for Schneiderlin: getting a bargain bin player who ended up rarely playing and who looks (looks) like he's going to leave after just one season. What is that other than a failure to back the man? And is that something Poch would have wanted? No, and no, imo.

Supposition again. Poch probably did want Schneiderlin. We have no idea whether Poch though Schneiderlin represented good value at the price he would have cost, if we could ever have got him away from Southampton at that point. And we have no idea what Poch thought about Stambouli last summer or whose idea it was that we sign him.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Do I need to dig up all the players signed by the likes of Ferguson or Redknapp that barely played? Sometimes things don't work out as planned and quite frankly, none of us knows what the plan was.

We wanted a high-end player, we got a budget bargain-basement one. Budget bargain one, despite being generally okay and a committed lad in training and in the dressing room, is possibly on his way out after one season of being underutilised and generally ignored in favour of youth players in his position: and this despite our obvious, crying need for a dedicated DM at times this season.

If the logical conclusions from that chain of events are too unimaginable for you to contemplate, mate, and if you seriously will only see what looks blatantly clear to a lot of people (me included) when Poch gives an AVB-style 'tell all' interview...well, I can't really influence your opinion in that case, given that you prefer absolute rock-hard certainties before assuming a position on something. And those are non-existent in the footballing world, utterly non-existent.

Although, having said that, I'm not sure you'd accept it even if Poch did give an AVB-style interview: weren't you of the opinion that AVB was a nasty liar and Levy was totally justified in the way he treated him?

Supposition again. Poch probably did want Schneiderlin. We have no idea whether Poch though Schneiderlin represented good value at the price he would have cost, if we could ever have got him away from Southampton at that point. And we have no idea what Poch thought about Stambouli last summer or whose idea it was that we sign him.

See above. One can make conclusions, but if they must be summarily dismissed because no 100 percent cast-iron guarantees exist, then what point is there in even posting on a football forum?

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Surely the debate has to be around the value of any player. If we value them at a lower figure then that's our call... And likewise we may value a player higher than the existing club and make that offer... Possibly foolishly... And end up over paying in hind sight

The key is not spending on a player we can't actually afford and therefore gambling. The reality is we as and have no real idea what the club can and can't afford and therefore speculate based on rumours and press reports. One thing is for sure, Levy (love or loathe him) know where every penny goes and what we can and can't afford

 

[DubaiSpur]

Surely the debate has to be around the value of any player. If we value them at a lower figure then that's our call... And likewise we may value a player higher than the existing club and make that offer... Possibly foolishly... And end up over paying in hind sight

The key is not spending on a player we can't actually afford and therefore gambling. The reality is we as and have no real idea what the club can and can't afford and therefore speculate based on rumours and press reports. One thing is for sure, Levy (love or loathe him) know where every penny goes and what we can and can't afford

Who's 'we'? If the manager wants the player desperately, and makes the case to the board, but the board bungs a free transfer or bargain bin replacement his way and tells him to get on with it, who is ultimately to blame if things don't work out? If the club is truly united when valuing a player, we wouldn't have gone through the debacles that we did, the ones Juande, Harry and AVB all talked about extensively. Is it fair to the managers we employ, to give them brick and tell them to build Atlantis with it?

As for the second bit, the 'key' to what? Success? Fat load of good that did us: in recent history, the two windows where we had a significant net spend saw us blast into the CL and flirt with the elite, with the following five seasons of profitable transfer windows (making us the lowest goddamn net spenders in the entire league over that time period) saw us regress to below our glass ceiling again, flitting around where our revenues put us, a feat any bog-standard, bang-average chairman can achieve if all it involves is simply jacking up ticket prices to absurd levels (second-highest in the league, in our case) and riding the ever-increasing wave of TV deals to stay ahead of the rest. Our risk-averse nature has hurt us far more than it has helped us, imo: although undoubtedly, the record 65 million pound profit we've just posted will soothe Levy as the trophy cabinet gathers cobwebs and Poch gets the bargain basement option every single goddamn time.

FFP rules are being relaxed all the way across the spectrum to allow clubs to spend a lot more to pursue their ambitions and dreams, but our Danny boy hides behind those very same rules when it comes to finding excuses to avoid spending. Sigh. His chairman's message from on high had that great tidbit, but it also indicated that a), he understood the 'popular sentiment' about spending to show ambition, and b) that he would be making changes in terms of our transfer policy this window. I hope to GHod he's serious about that, because this manager needs to be backed, and I hope to see him do so: because the alternative is another sacking, another AVB-style 'tell all' interview, another rube, and so on.

 

[parklane1]

Talk about agendas, you really do have a problem mate. Are you sure he did not kick your cat/dog?

 

[milo]

See above. One can make conclusions, but if they must be summarily dismissed because no 100 percent cast-iron guarantees exist, then what point is there in even posting on a football forum?

No problem with you speculating but I think it doesn't strengthen an argument if you try to pass it off as fact or the only viable interpretation of events.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Talk about agendas, you really do have a problem mate. Are you sure he did not kick your cat/dog?

No, goddamnit, he did not kick my pet. All I've got at present is a goldfish, anyway.

Sigh. I don't have an 'agenda', and I deeply dislike how casually that term is used on fan forums (not just here) to dissuade often legitimate criticism of a part of the club that some other fans feel is holy, and beyond reproach. Levy's done an average, average job so far, and will likely continue to do so in the future: it bothers me when this average model of governance for a club our size is held up as the shining standard which all clubs should aspire to, an irreproachably good way of running the club that doesn't leave a trail of broken promises, fading dreams, angry managers, and mediocrity in its wake. There was a time when I thought he was revolutionary, as good as the David Deins and Andrea Agnellis of this world: then he hit his glass ceiling, proved that he had the risk-taking panache of a frightened tortoise, proved unwilling to be even a mite philanthropic as a part-owner to boot, and then conducted the shenanigans which saw one of our most talented managers (imo) walk out and then slam the club over the farcical nature of its operations shortly afterward. Needless to say, I changed my mind.

I've been willing to eat my words for a long time now: all I want is for him to back the guy in charge in a real way, so we can return to the sort of thing we had the last time that happened (09/10). I've even mentioned it repeatedly so far this summer: if he is really serious about changing the way we operate in the window, then more power to him, and it's great that he's learned from his mistakes. Hardly a set, unchanging attitude, especially when you consider that, again, I've repeatedly said that I have nothing against the guy personally: I'm sure he's a lovely bloke in person, but he's just been an utterly mediocre chairman so far.

My only 'agenda', if you insist on labelling it that, is pointing out his mistakes in the hope that people acknowledge that they were indeed mistakes, something I believe will help us better understand the way our transfer windows work going forward (if he refuses to change his ways, of course). That's all my 'agenda' is. If that's a problem in your eyes, mate, then GHod help the state of critical discourse online, because it's utterly dead going by that diagnosis.

No problem with you speculating but I think it doesn't strengthen an argument if you try to pass it off as fact or the only viable interpretation of events.

Surely you must admit that it is at least the most plausible explanation? Given the chain of events?