|
Steven P
12:39 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
Thames Ironworks 10:58 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
So much wrong with that post.
|
LeroysBoots
12:39 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
Comma, do fuck off
|
,
12:36 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
Let's not bring WBA into the discussion about spending and how teams are doing. There is a definite top six and Everton are trying to join them and are well clear of the best of the rest which WBA head.
Our immediate aim must be to get to the Everton level. We more than did that last season but that was an aberration as Leicester proved and at a time where Chelsea were in turmoil, ManU badly managed and Southampton over performing under the excellent Koeman. This season it is back to the norm with the likes of Leicester, Southampton and us knowing our place in the pecking order. As regards spending on players our present owners are no more skinflint than anyone else outside the top six.
|
Rossal
12:04 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
Spurs have 3 "bargains" in their best XI. Rose, Walker and Alli.
Err also add Dier, Kane, Alderwiereld, Dembele, Verthongen, Eriksen and Lloris
All of them are easily worth double what Spurs paid for them
Their best 11 might of cost them £100M but for second in the premier league thats peanuts. Everton have not spent ridiculous and are mixing it up there, same for West Brom. The players are out there to get us in the top 6 we just need to find them which with our current personel looks very unlikely
|
13 Brentford Rd
12:04 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
Obviously not only about spending big but alll the top clubs have at some point spent big on individual players and will do again when required. They have great squads already so don’t need to spend massive every window though some have recently.
Spurs for example were buying players around the 25 - 30m mark years ago, our record signing is still only 20m.Even clubs like Palace, Leicester and Stoke have higher record signings and so do Everton.
We are not going to be able to even get near the top 7 or 8 with freebies, loans and the odd rarity like Payet for 11m. To find cheap gems like Spurs,, Southampton and a few others manage to do often, requires a proper set up from top to bottom with a med to long-term strategy which the our owners are incapable of.
|
Side of Ham
11:57 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
The move is shit sTOWIE because these owners haven't and don't look like keeping up with it's upgrade in size and clubs, for some stupid modern football reason, are judged in part by their stadium capacities.If we was to have our current transfer outlook then we should have stayed put.
As for being a weirdo......weirdo is banging on and on about something you've given up on, walk away with the other whiners.......buy another mirror for your Loughton boudoir, those of us that have a financial commitment to the club still can moan with just cause.
|
Willtell
11:14 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
Can't disagree with that stewie. The man at the top takes the wrap...
You never know though. If the HMR&C find anything dodgy in their investigation going on at the moment we might have to do without Brady and Sullivan for a while...
|
Lee Trundle
11:13 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
Spurs have 3 "bargains" in their best XI. Rose, Walker and Alli.
Their best XI easily cost them over £100m I reckon. We're probably not far behind that, although it's difficult to work out what our best XI is nowadays.
I 100% agree that we should be spending our money better, but I still think you have to buy big to break into top reaches of the Premier League. All of the teams who are constantly up there have.
|
stewie griffin
11:05 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
My opinion, fwiw, Tell son; is that all 3 must take some responsibility for poor signings.
However, the overarching strategy at the club has to come from the top down.
It was the one thing I had some sympathy with Allardyce over. Fair play to him, he was honest from the start - came in and said he had very little interest in developing the club as a whole, because managers are judged on short term measures, so he would only be signing players to go straight into the first team.
If you have that culture where a manager is constantly looking over his shoulder, you're almost always going to go for 'experience' (for experience read 'ageing, never going to improve, on peak wages and unable to sell') and as a result, the squads needs an overhaul on an almost annual basis.
Similarly, if the club doesn't have an overarching strategy to speak of, you end up changing managers and from person to person their ideas and philosophies are completely different. From Zola to Grant, Grant to Allardyce, Allardyce to Bilic. Almost entirely different, meaning further squad overhauls.
So what you end up with is a squad of ageing players with no resale value, on peak wages, running down contracts, who aren't necessarily in whoever the next manager might be's plans.
It's a perfect clusterfuck, and why we lurch from brief moments of happiness to longer term mediocrity.
|
Thames Ironworks
10:58 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
We have a habit of looking at players performing well in lesser leagues. Most leagues around the world have 2-3 top clubs and the rest just keep the numbers. The Prem has at least 15 teams all competing to get close to the top where the differentiator is money amongst the top 5 - 6. G&S do not have the money to compete at the levels of clubs who have gained money through good cup runs, investment from mega rich owners and a good youth policy. These are all things we lack.
The result is buying players from other leagues because they are cheaper and worth a punt. Purchasing within the Prem is expensive and usually you end up with the has beens from other clubs, or ageing or injury prone players. To be honest this club has tried both approaches, purchase from the Prem for the riskier deal or the cheaper option from leagues where a player cannot step up to the demands of the Prem.
Where we have failed is in our youth policy. I bet if everyone knew we would be around mid table this season and that is our regular expected position, then we would field more youth players to develop them?
In truth, season after season, these owners will not have the funds to compete to get us in Europe and stay there or a good cup run. We can barely field a team which can play in the league having to fill gaping holes in our squad, so how can we challenge on multiple fronts?
The club needs to be realistic and use these younger players to fill the gaps in the squad, and to put in some heavy investment in areas where the squad as a whole lacks creativity and skill. That way you enrich the squad as a whole then you require minor investment to keep momentum.
|
Willtell
10:57 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
I think Side was basically saying similar to you stewie. The whole point is really who is it that keeps making these poor decisions on players?
Do we think it is the manager, the chief scout or the owner?
|
Trevor B
10:51 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
We also turned down the player of the year in favour of keeping Song on loan.
|
stewie griffin
10:50 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
no idea what you're babbling on about you weirdo, although your reference to this move is being shit is noted, and agreed, it's onl;y taken 5 years for you to get there.
Nonetheless, i'll simplify my point, just for you.
£11 million.
It buys you Matt JARVIS, Robert SNODGRASS or Dimitri PAYET.
We need to sign more of the latter and less of the former.
The PFA player of the year cost £5.6 million when he moved to this country.
The PFA Young Player of the Year cost £5 million.
As I said, I am not - and never will be - obsessed about spending big. You don't need to.
|
Willtell
10:43 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
It's weird that G&S set themselves up to be knocked back all the time with their gobshite. They are caricatures of the archetype cheapskate owners yet have backed BFS & Bilic quite heavily. Better than any previous owners.
What is obvious is that fans clearly think that Sullivan dictates player purchases but I have trouble with believing that. I'm sure he has a say but when we have Bilic as manager and Tony Henry as Head of Player Recruitment then surely he must take their advice?
Why employ expensive experts and then tell them what players to pick? It just doesn't make sense and to me the problem is the constant leaking of info from Sullivan, his kids or various ITK's as if Sullivan himself is pulling all their strings.
Bilic did himself no favours by saying he wanted Zaza and Tore. He waxed lyrical about Nordtveit and Feghouli. Calleri we are all sure was a Sullivan punt which he really ought to stop doing because he's visibly trying to get one over on his "experts".
Cheap, crass and like a kid in a sweet shop Sullivan is the real problem. Gold is just a harmless old miser but gets tarred with the same brush Sullivan deserves.
|
Side of Ham
10:30 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
Won't go by Spurs either because both are done on historic reputations of laying out for 2/3 top players then topping that up AND because of that reputation they get to cherry pick.
Spurs are the original Chelsea who regularly even back in the late 70's would try and outspend everyone else.
Our reputation is to under cut, get top clubs rejects and any player who has any talent has to be unknown to the PL for us not to have us outbid for them.
We need to break down barriers of looking like we are restricted to has beens and punts and just for a while buy a few top quality players.
Chelsea did this and Man City, they woke up and shocked the world by just a couple of top signings when they wanted to step up.
We convey a message of 'out our depth' since this move and it would have been better to have stayed 'lil ok West Ham' if that's the case and quietly build like say Southampton.
|
Trevor B
10:16 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
SoH
For the answer see Spurs, they have built their squad steadily over time, with regular, but not OTT, investment, bringing in players that retain value, buying young players that improve with good coaching and by getting top dollar for their to players when they have to sell.
I fucking hate to say it but theirs is the model we should be following.
|
Side of Ham
10:12 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
Erm sTOWIE, how did they get to the point where they just need to top up because they already have top quality players?
I mean it's not like Roman has not put in the money to make them step into the realms of being regular PL champions you thick cunt.
Go and have a manicure.....
|
Trevor B
10:11 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
Indeed, and importantly spending it on players that have resale value. Spurs, annoyingly, seem to be rather good at this.
|
stewie griffin
9:50 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
why are people so obsessed with spending money?
the last 3 premier league champions (assuming Chelsea win it, and will be even less if the beaks win it) have a net spend of about £50 million across the 3 seasons.
Considerably less than our net spend.
It's not about spending money, its about how you spend it.
|
Steven P
9:45 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
I think you both proved my point. We have the money, we just don't use it.
|
theaxeman
9:40 Wed Apr 26
Re: Sullivan & Gold
|
When they say invest do they mean lend and take a whopping 6.7% interest on the loan netting them over £6m ler annum each.
Theyve invested fuck all and made themselves considerably richer of the back of West Ham United.
Dirty lying cunts
|
|
|
|
