Mauricio Pochettino - Sacked

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Same set of circumstances at United, City, Chelsea, Barca, PSG etc.

No, not really.

Utd had LVG for 3 (or 4?) seasons, let him build a side, play his way. Similarly Mourinho, though in the interests of self preservation they havent let him complete free reign on transfers.

City have allowed each manager time and money, and a fair degree of freedom.

Chelsea are a changing beast, and probably more similar to Madrid than the others.

I think, if you dig a bit, youll see it is not the same at all.

Madrid are offer supercharged pressure, no comfort of a committment to a managers methods, no power to the manager in transfers, no power to the manager over players, and a demand for all that to lead to sexy football and success or you are out...

 

[DeanoAustin]

For the life of me, I can’t understand how Roberto Martinez is linked. I think he’s a better manager than most people seem to but I’d be disappointed bordering on disgusted if we appointed him. Wasn’t good enough for Everton but good enough for Madrid? Come on. Talks a lot of bollox in interviews too.

 

[Spur of the moment]

To be honest, I thought Neville and Carragher both made some good points about us. Couldn’t disagree with much of what either said even though they managed to disagree hugely with each other.

Fair enough. I was mainly going on Neville's 'pathetic and spineless for 30 years' rant which to my mind was just a tad OTT.

 

[StephenH]

Fair enough. I was mainly going on Neville's 'pathetic and spineless for 30 years' rant which to my mind was just a tad OTT.

Think he was over-egging the sexy rant in desperation because of Carragher's inability to grasp basic economics.
The sooner SKY replaced Carragher with someone of at least average intellect the better IMO.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Fair enough. I was mainly going on Neville's 'pathetic and spineless for 30 years' rant which to my mind was just a tad OTT.

Yeah he probably overstated it a bit but when you’ve played against a side that’s 3-0 up at half time at home and somehow loses 5-3 or 2-0 up at Old Trafford and loses 5-2, you can understand what he’s saying.

We are the club who were 3-0 against a 10 man Emirates Marketing Project side who hadn’t won in forever at home and still managed to lose as well.

As stinging as the criticism was, given the talent we had over the years, we were a bit pathetic when things got tough. And it was really a rant and comparison that showed how far we’ve come.

 

[StephenH]

we were a bit pathetic when things got tough

There is still much work to do in this area when I think of Juve last season and Inter this, as just two examples.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Think he was over-egging the sexy rant in desperation because of Carragher's inability to grasp basic economics.
The sooner SKY replaced Carragher with someone of at least average intellect the better IMO.

I think Carragher is okay. The point he made is right. We can’t expect to properly compete with a net spend of £29m over 4 years. In that context, what Pochettino has done to get us top 4 is incredible. It’s a point that lots of people on here (me included) have made.

There are two extremes in this argument. “Levy is a tightwad who just wont invest in the team” and “Levy has no option in terms of squad spending because all our money is tied up in the stadium.”

Neither of those are true and the truth is somewhere in the middle. It all depends on your viewpoint but there is logic behind both arguments and that’s where Neville and Carragher were the other night. Therefore, I wouldn’t really criticize either of them for their views because both make sense. Personally, I’d slightly err towards Carragher’s interpretation but wouldn’t go as strong on it as he did because I think he’s underplaying the stadium aspect and he’s not really seeing the long term picture.

 

[parklane1]

Funny isn't it. Those two were all over us until just recently. But no sooner do we enter a spell when several of our lynchpin players are either injured (Dele. Eriksen, Vertonghen) or suffering a dip in form (Lloris, Toby, Dier, Kane) than the knives come out. And that after a narrow 0-1 defeat to a team that has hired the world's best club manager and spunked a nett £500m more on players.

C'est la vie.

I doubt there are many who really take to much notice what either of them say, they both like the sound of their own voices and are there doing a job which in all honesty most could do. There obviously have experience of playing at a high level but they are footballers ( and most of them are not the most intelligent folks around).

They have to fill time on the air time and are both willing to talk brick ( mostly).

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

To be honest, I thought Neville and Carragher both made some good points about us. Couldn’t disagree with much of what either said even though they managed to disagree hugely with each other.

What Carragher said about the £29m net spend was fair enough, you can’t expect to compete for the title on that, which is fine, you can’t go up against Liverpool and City who have spent half a billion in the last couple of seasons.

Then Neville put it in to context for him “have you forgotten they’re building a £500m stadium?”. There shouldn’t be the expectation that we win the title at the moment, from anyone! You’d be deluded if you thought that was the REALISTIC aim of the club this season.

Carragher seems to think money grows on trees and like Neville said, had Liverpool been building a 500m+ stadium do you think they’d be spending that again on players like they have done the last couple of seasons?

 

[StephenH]

I don't credit Carragher with any redeeming features and if it was down to me he would be off SKY.
His argument, if you can call it that, is you have to spend even if you have not got the money. Which is exactly what I would expect from him.
Now you may think we have the money but that is pure conjecture and flies in face of everything we know re stadium costs and financial income.

Carragher is a poor excuse for a man and after his spitting antics and now his inability grasp of the most basic economics it comes as no surprise.
Garry got overexcited, bless him. I think he earns his fee for just having to put up with spit the dog.

 

[StephenH]

I doubt there are many who really take to much notice what either of them say, they both like the sound of their own voices and are there doing a job which in all honesty most could do. There obviously have experience of playing at a high level but they are footballers ( and most of them are not the most intelligent folks around).

They have to fill time on the air time and are both willing to talk brick ( mostly).

For once Mr Neville was actually talking some sense whilst Carragher was sounding like one of the infamous "pitchfork phalanx" that gathers outside our stadium on occasions in the recent past chanting Levy out!, We must buy players! etc.

 

[parklane1]

For once Mr Neville was actually talking some sense whilst Carragher was towing the like of the infamous "pitchfork rude boys" that gathers outside our stadium on occasions in the recent past chanting Levy out!, We must buy players! etc.

They are times when he does i agree, but the time they are on air for has to be filled and to do that they have to spout any old rubbish ( which they do imo).

 

[Lemonade Money]

It's not about what we spend, it's more important what the squad is worth. An article recently suggested our squad was worth the same as City's. We just go about building it differently.

 

[Lemonade Money]

Neville and Carragher are turning into a parody of themselves. It's almost like before the show they say "What opposing views are we going to take", and then get really heated and argue about it on air.

 

[parklane1]

Reminds me of these

 

[StephenH]

They are times when he does i agree, but the time they are on air for has to be filled and to do that they have to spout any old rubbish ( which they do imo).

Have you seen the piece in question?
Both had bad moments. GN when he tried to stupidly explain basic primary school economics to Carragher and when in frustration Carragher went OTT with the 'sexy' history.
But Carragher was embarrassing for a grown man. I hope he let his Mrs run household budgets.

 

[StephenH]

Reminds me of these

Normally I would agree but not this time. Carragher was in full scouse mode!

 

[DeanoAustin]

I don't credit Carragher with any redeeming features and if it was down to me he would be off SKY.
His argument, if you can call it that, is you have to spend even if you have not got the money. Which is exactly what I would expect from him.
Now you may think we have the money but that is pure conjecture and flies in face of everything we know re stadium costs and financial income.

Carragher is a poor excuse for a man and after his spitting antics and now his inability grasp of the most basic economics it comes as no surprise.
Garry got overexcited, bless him. I think he earns his fee for just having to put up with spit the dog.

It’s not quite as simple as saying “we don’t have the money” though. This argument is not black and white.

Let’s say that if we signed Player X for 50m, that would be the difference between 4th and 5th. Then offset that 50m against the prize money for CL. That could be 50m well spent because qualifying for the CL could return that amount and more and keep the players (and manager) that we want to keep. Not signing that player saves us 50m in the short term but loses more in the longer term.

The problem is that it’s a risk to spend the 50m because no one knows what difference the player will make when you’re spending the money. And Levy has to do it in a way that means we aren’t bankrupted if it goes wrong. It’s all about judging the risk associated with a purchase. I really believe that we could have spent in the summer but Levy judged it too risky for his liking and would rather minimize the stadium debt.

That’s fair enough. I disagree but see the logic. But its not a case that we couldn’t have spent the money that Carragher was advocating we should spend. His argument has some validity/logic and the next 5-10 years will tell if he was right or wrong.

 

[benp]

They've not been bad owners, certainly not. But why have we been 'incredibly lucky' with ENIC? What have they put in, what have they *done*, that justifies this hyperbole? They have taken the club's own money, and spent it in a roughly competent, entirely risk-free way, in a manner that raises the value of their asset. Have they put their own money in? No. Has their reign resulted in trophies and titles? No, *hell* no.

And have they pushed the boat out when the chance to win titles and trophies has presented itself? F*cking no, not at all.

@BrainOfLevy made an interesting point a while ago, in that this crop of players and this manager has come too early for ENIC's liking. They didn't want to have to deal with funding a title-challenging team this early - their plan was for Poch to hover around 5th-6th place while the stadium was being built, and then worry about actually winning things long, long after that.

But I don't think that reflects well on them - in fact, just the opposite. Like with January 2012, when we were gunning for the title and received Louis Saha and Ryan Nelsen on free transfers instead of the more expensive strikers and defenders our manager requested. Like that, now we find ourselves in a similar situation - we found a diamond, a managerial gem who can get us punching above our weight and work miracles with no money at all.

And instead of backing that man and taking the risk to enable him to compete, we are content to let him keep working with absolutely nothing, floating around the top four, winning nothing and growing increasingly frustrated as a result.

Because to do otherwise would be taking a risk and backing him, you see. And we don't do that - it doesn't fit with our plan of vaguely competing at some point in the next 10 to 15 years, when the stars align (if they align).

I think that behaviour's fundamentally ingrained within Levy and ENIC. They don't care about winning things, and never have.

And that just exhausts me. We'll see more of the same, whether it's Wembley, or WHL, or Nike Stadium or whatever we end up calling it. It won't change. Nothing will be followed-up on, and momentum will always be lost because the club isn't interested in pushing the boat out when we are in positions like this.

Which is why we need new owners. And which is why I'm exhausted with them, and I'd rather they finish the stadium, take their billion-pound profit and leave. And I wish them well with their next venture afterward.




I'm aware of the chances involved. I never said we were guaranteed a jovial billionaire who cares about winning things.

But Levy isn't all that great, and the structural issues behind why we win so little will persist with him, and with our penny-pinching absentee owner, no matter who manages us and whatever the stadium brings us.

I think this is actually a really well put, emotionally measured argument. I don't necessarily disagree greatly with what you have put. I am just scared that the next owners will be worse, and i'm actually quite happy operating in a competent, risk free way, especially when it's promoted continued achievement over the period ENIC have been in charge.

 

[harr1984]

It's not about what we spend, it's more important what the squad is worth. An article recently suggested our squad was worth the same as City's. We just go about building it differently.

Its only more important what the squad is worth if you're a selling club. The reason our value of squad would be similar to Citys is because we have younger players with higher resale value, Citys squad has more established stars in their prime and can win more trophies. So depends on what you want to achieve....