If transfer negotiations consisted of a team saying "Hes valued at 50 mill" and everything below would always be refused, people like Maria Grankovskaia wouldnt have a job. Neither would the thousands of others who have the same occuoation at various orher clubs. 

Edited June 17, 20179 yr by Xfaxtor

2 hours ago, Xfaxtor said:

If transfer negotiations consisted of a team saying "Hes valued at 50 mill" and everything below would always be refused, people like Maria Grankovskaia wouldnt have a job. Neither would the thousands of others who have the same occuoation at various orher clubs. 

Of course you're right. But that doesn't mean a club says "he's valued at 50 mil" and you give them a 15 mil offer. And then when it's inevitably rejected, you start giving them new offers in 3 mil increments. It's actually disrespectful.

1 hour ago, Barrettinator said:

Of course you're right. But that doesn't mean a club says "he's valued at 50 mil" and you give them a 15 mil offer. And then when it's inevitably rejected, you start giving them new offers in 3 mil increments. It's actually disrespectful.

Og course. Is this what happened though? I mean theres not really any way for any of us to know. And the journalist reports om theae stories really know f**k all and are only creating a narrative to genererate clicks

Is he better than VVD though?

4 hours ago, Xfaxtor said:

If transfer negotiations consisted of a team saying "Hes valued at 50 mill" and everything below would always be refused, people like Maria Grankovskaia wouldnt have a job. Neither would the thousands of others who have the same occuoation at various orher clubs. 

It's a bit more intricate than here is 50 mil, ok...other than the room for reasonable negotiation, there are clauses, buy backs, performance bonuses, sell on percentages, player terms, commercial rights, there's is so much to negotiate so yes there is a need for expertise, however being good at all that but not being able to make the deal your manager wants happen isn't a good negotiator in the context of high level football transfers, better than me or you, undoubtedly, but making a key error again and again yes, and it doesn't take an expert standing outside the situation to do that, I suspect her who is clouding her judgment.

If city want a player they get him, why? 

It's like a pilot is not taking the required rest between flights, if he has a few near misses and someone observing says wtf is he doing what a basic error, doesn't mean the person can fly a plane and it doesn't mean the pilot can't perform all the intricate aviation duties that are required but I can still say get your rest you twat and stop punching above your weight. 

This is no different, she can be well versed in all the contractual requisites, she can have the contacts and influence all these things differ her from me or you but the fact she isn't getting her targets means she is not performing well, are you better than Mikel? Do you think being a DM is straight forward, cut out the passing lanes, break up play... I bet you have had a few choice things to say about his footballing ability though. Same thing. It does take an expert but an expert in the context of their peers payed to perform at their level can be criticised when it's clear they are making bad decisions. 

3 hours ago, Barrettinator said:

Of course you're right. But that doesn't mean a club says "he's valued at 50 mil" and you give them a 15 mil offer. And then when it's inevitably rejected, you start giving them new offers in 3 mil increments. It's actually disrespectful.

You're big on the respect angle. Thats a pretty extreme example but it would be disrespectful if you starting that way. It would also be poor negotiating. 

2 hours ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

You're big on the respect angle. Thats a pretty extreme example but it would be disrespectful if you starting that way. It would also be poor negotiating. 

A little extreme, yes, but it's essentially what we did with Napoli and Koulibaly last summer. According to them, by the time we tabled the right offer, it was days before deadline day and they didn't have enough time to find a replacement. This is a player we started chasing in July of that summer. Pretty silly negotiation imo. The respect angle is important because selling clubs always want to save face for their fans. They want to look like they got the best deal for all parties involved and weren't mugged off. You have to respect that factor while taking advantage of the fact that they're open to selling.

7 hours ago, Barrettinator said:

A little extreme, yes, but it's essentially what we did with Napoli and Koulibaly last summer. According to them, by the time we tabled the right offer, it was days before deadline day and they didn't have enough time to find a replacement. This is a player we started chasing in July of that summer. Pretty silly negotiation imo. The respect angle is important because selling clubs always want to save face for their fans. They want to look like they got the best deal for all parties involved and weren't mugged off. You have to respect that factor while taking advantage of the fact that they're open to selling.

That's a load of hogwash though. 

You don't start looking for a player after you've agreed to sell your own, I guarantee they were looking around when the negotiations were taking place if I remember correctly they were linked with Lindelof, Manolas and a few others, which all broke down and they couldn't attract anyone of a suitable level to be a replacement.

Negotiations go both ways, if your negotiating partner isn't playing ball its hard to gauge what would be a good deal them.

This is all hypothetical but lets say it isn't our side being difficult. 

Lets say you believe the current market value of your managers no.1 pick for CB is £40m, you see that Napoli do have someone already to fill the spot in Tonelli and Chrvches so that they might consider a sale and you know that players like Lindelof and Manolas are willing to leave their respective clubs for a step up and that Napoli might be interested in signing them as replacements. 
Lets also say that we are potentially tabling back up deals in case we can't get our man, avoiding another Djilobodji debacle and we are confident a deal can be agreed in principle for the managers fifth choice say in Luiz relatively easily.

You ask for an initial valuation they say they aren't selling,

Do you continue trying at this point or do you give up? On here there is a lot of moaning about us not backing managers and not signing the players they want so I don't think you can complain about us continuing.

This is your managers top priority so you can't take no for an answer, you see if a bid just under market value say £30m plus £10m in add ons might get negotiations started, you get a flat no.

You decide to wait a couple of weeks then table another bid of say £35m plus £7m in add ons to see if that gets the ball rolling, whilst only £2m more overall, which will be the figure quoted in the media but it should be a lot more attractive as there is more up front. You still get a flat no.

You probably start to pursue other targets like Lindelof and Manolas, to which there had been rumours and find out that Napoli have been enquiring also so they clearly have been listening to the offers and are contemplating a sale. So you enquire again and get a he is not for sale, you press a little harder on their links with the other players and they say it will take a ridiculous bid for them to consider and mention £55-60m ball park. Whilst looking into other options a £30m price tag has been put on Luiz and you believe that reasonable and therefore don't want to get shafted by Napoli.

You see if they want to come to the table with a £40m bid plus £7m in add ons and again get a no, however by this point it doesn't seem like the figure is the issue it's that Napoli are struggling to pick up their replacement options and are getting tentative again.

The negotiations now all seem to depend on Napoli getting their man so you have to sit patiently tying up other transfers getting the Luiz deal in place, and have one final crack a week or 2 before the transfer window closes and table a £42m bid plus £10m in add ons which they give the response you mention above.
At this point Napoli know they haven't got there man and therefore that they were never in a position to sell but they now have to placate the Player and his agent as we know they wanted to leave as well as try to make themselves not look overly hard to deal with, so they deem this a suitable excuse. 

To me I wouldn't see this as an unreasonable approach for the club to have taken and from what I remember being written at the time is the most likely scenario to have played out. The figures may also be wrong my memory is not that detailed.

Could we have got our man if we offered £60m off the bat maybe, but we could have  had a similar situation just starting off from a much higher position who knows. 

  

       

Edited June 18, 20179 yr by PedroMendez

And you have to take into account Napoli's owner who is one of the biggest egotists in the world...think Daniel Levy x 2...

7 hours ago, PedroMendez said:

That's a load of hogwash though. 

You don't start looking for a player after you've agreed to sell your own, I guarantee they were looking around when the negotiations were taking place if I remember correctly they were linked with Lindelof, Manolas and a few others, which all broke down and they couldn't attract anyone of a suitable level to be a replacement.

Negotiations go both ways, if your negotiating partner isn't playing ball its hard to gauge what would be a good deal them.

This is all hypothetical but lets say it isn't our side being difficult. 

Lets say you believe the current market value of your managers no.1 pick for CB is £40m, you see that Napoli do have someone already to fill the spot in Tonelli and Chrvches so that they might consider a sale and you know that players like Lindelof and Manolas are willing to leave their respective clubs for a step up and that Napoli might be interested in signing them as replacements. 
Lets also say that we are potentially tabling back up deals in case we can't get our man, avoiding another Djilobodji debacle and we are confident a deal can be agreed in principle for the managers fifth choice say in Luiz relatively easily.

You ask for an initial valuation they say they aren't selling,

Do you continue trying at this point or do you give up? On here there is a lot of moaning about us not backing managers and not signing the players they want so I don't think you can complain about us continuing.

This is your managers top priority so you can't take no for an answer, you see if a bid just under market value say £30m plus £10m in add ons might get negotiations started, you get a flat no.

You decide to wait a couple of weeks then table another bid of say £35m plus £7m in add ons to see if that gets the ball rolling, whilst only £2m more overall, which will be the figure quoted in the media but it should be a lot more attractive as there is more up front. You still get a flat no.

You probably start to pursue other targets like Lindelof and Manolas, to which there had been rumours and find out that Napoli have been enquiring also so they clearly have been listening to the offers and are contemplating a sale. So you enquire again and get a he is not for sale, you press a little harder on their links with the other players and they say it will take a ridiculous bid for them to consider and mention £55-60m ball park. Whilst looking into other options a £30m price tag has been put on Luiz and you believe that reasonable and therefore don't want to get shafted by Napoli.

You see if they want to come to the table with a £40m bid plus £7m in add ons and again get a no, however by this point it doesn't seem like the figure is the issue it's that Napoli are struggling to pick up their replacement options and are getting tentative again.

The negotiations now all seem to depend on Napoli getting their man so you have to sit patiently tying up other transfers getting the Luiz deal in place, and have one final crack a week or 2 before the transfer window closes and table a £42m bid plus £10m in add ons which they give the response you mention above.
At this point Napoli know they haven't got there man and therefore that they were never in a position to sell but they now have to placate the Player and his agent as we know they wanted to leave as well as try to make themselves not look overly hard to deal with, so they deem this a suitable excuse. 

To me I wouldn't see this as an unreasonable approach for the club to have taken and from what I remember being written at the time is the most likely scenario to have played out. The figures may also be wrong my memory is not that detailed.

Could we have got our man if we offered £60m off the bat maybe, but we could have  had a similar situation just starting off from a much higher position who knows. 

  

       

That's all well put and likely how it played out but you know the situation from the start, make a  offer from the start enough to tempt them to hurry to find a replacement, if on week one we said 50 million, the deal would have got done.

That's how city negotiate and they always get their man. When dealing in complicated circumstances like this deal you can't take an approach that would be reasonable under perfect circumstances, you have an awkward owner, a team without the need for money as they just sold Higuain and no like for like replacement for the man you want...normal tactics don't work in such cases you need a head turning offer or don't bother wasting your time. 

Edited June 18, 20179 yr by DonAntonio

That's a load of hogwash though. 

You don't start looking for a player after you've agreed to sell your own, I guarantee they were looking around when the negotiations were taking place if I remember correctly they were linked with Lindelof, Manolas and a few others, which all broke down and they couldn't attract anyone of a suitable level to be a replacement.

Negotiations go both ways, if your negotiating partner isn't playing ball its hard to gauge what would be a good deal them.

This is all hypothetical but lets say it isn't our side being difficult. 

Lets say you believe the current market value of your managers no.1 pick for CB is £40m, you see that Napoli do have someone already to fill the spot in Tonelli and Chrvches so that they might consider a sale and you know that players like Lindelof and Manolas are willing to leave their respective clubs for a step up and that Napoli might be interested in signing them as replacements. 
Lets also say that we are potentially tabling back up deals in case we can't get our man, avoiding another Djilobodji debacle and we are confident a deal can be agreed in principle for the managers fifth choice say in Luiz relatively easily.

You ask for an initial valuation they say they aren't selling,

Do you continue trying at this point or do you give up? On here there is a lot of moaning about us not backing managers and not signing the players they want so I don't think you can complain about us continuing.

This is your managers top priority so you can't take no for an answer, you see if a bid just under market value say £30m plus £10m in add ons might get negotiations started, you get a flat no.

You decide to wait a couple of weeks then table another bid of say £35m plus £7m in add ons to see if that gets the ball rolling, whilst only £2m more overall, which will be the figure quoted in the media but it should be a lot more attractive as there is more up front. You still get a flat no.

You probably start to pursue other targets like Lindelof and Manolas, to which there had been rumours and find out that Napoli have been enquiring also so they clearly have been listening to the offers and are contemplating a sale. So you enquire again and get a he is not for sale, you press a little harder on their links with the other players and they say it will take a ridiculous bid for them to consider and mention £55-60m ball park. Whilst looking into other options a £30m price tag has been put on Luiz and you believe that reasonable and therefore don't want to get shafted by Napoli.

You see if they want to come to the table with a £40m bid plus £7m in add ons and again get a no, however by this point it doesn't seem like the figure is the issue it's that Napoli are struggling to pick up their replacement options and are getting tentative again.

The negotiations now all seem to depend on Napoli getting their man so you have to sit patiently tying up other transfers getting the Luiz deal in place, and have one final crack a week or 2 before the transfer window closes and table a £42m bid plus £10m in add ons which they give the response you mention above.
At this point Napoli know they haven't got there man and therefore that they were never in a position to sell but they now have to placate the Player and his agent as we know they wanted to leave as well as try to make themselves not look overly hard to deal with, so they deem this a suitable excuse. 

To me I wouldn't see this as an unreasonable approach for the club to have taken and from what I remember being written at the time is the most likely scenario to have played out. The figures may also be wrong my memory is not that detailed.

Could we have got our man if we offered £60m off the bat maybe, but we could have  had a similar situation just starting off from a much higher position who knows. 

  

       

The problem with the picture you're painting is:

1. Why wait WEEKS between bids? During that whole period you're losing valuable time in the window.

2. Why table an offer that's only marginally better like you're Wenger penny pinching? You know very well there are only a handful of players on world football that Chelsea can't afford (the Ronaldos and Messis and Neymars).

3. Luiz himself has confirmed that CFC only made an inquiry and subsequent offer about him on deadline day. So no, they didn't have Luiz planned as a backup option the whole time. He was a last minute thought that just happened to work out in our favour. PSG could have told us to f**k off if Emery(sp?) wanted to keep Luiz.

6 minutes ago, Barrettinator said:

The problem with the picture you're painting is:

1. Why wait WEEKS between bids? During that whole period you're losing valuable time in the window.

2. Why table an offer that's only marginally better like you're Wenger penny pinching? You know very well there are only a handful of players on world football that Chelsea can't afford (the Ronaldos and Messis and Neymars).

3. Luiz himself has confirmed that CFC only made an inquiry and subsequent offer about him on deadline day. So no, they didn't have Luiz planned as a backup option the whole time. He was a last minute thought that just happened to work out in our favour. PSG could have told us to f**k off if Emery(sp?) wanted to keep Luiz.

1. To give Napoli time to mull over selling Koulibaly, time to check what alternatives out there that they would want as a replacement if they were to sell him and to allow agent and player to get wind of the rejected bid and potentially make noise about leaving. All of which can help progress a negotiation process. Also a response to a bid isn't likely to come back immediately at the start of the window any way as it they will likely want to do the above. This is a business after all and business decisions take time.

2. Adding an extra £5m in cash to the transfer plus £2m overall is not in my mind penny pinching especially as again this is more an opening proposal for them to come to the table. This bid is more to see if they have reconsidered their position and whether they are willing to negotiate or at least provide us with what they would accept and a flat no means you move on which we ended up doing chasing Lindelof and Manolas.  
Further to this we have never really massively over spent compared with a players market value on a particular transfer, and I very much doubt that we would have wanted to spend £60m+ on Koulibaly so yes suddenly shooting up from £40m to £50m is not something I see the club wanting to do and in any case I think it would massively weaken our negotiating position, suggesting we are desperate and will likely want to go much higher.

In your scenario what happens?
We enquire they say they aren't selling, we go here's £50m despite thinking his worth to Napoli is only around £40m, then what happens next?
or even we enquire they say they aren't selling, we go here's £40m, they say no, here's £50m. what happens next then?
I guarantee it isn't yeah sure have him. It will be sorry we still aren't interested if your next proposal is maybe £80-90m we may come to the table, then what? WE aren't going to pay that so we end up heading down the route I outlined and look at alternatives but we would return in a much weaker position if we were to decide to rebid starting at what £60m later down the line.  

3. I very much doubt that it was all done on the last day, I imagine that we will have at least known that Luiz was obtainable well in advance, as managers don't just decide a player, who is actually in their starting 11 is suddenly surplus to requirements on deadline day. But if you are right, than it is incredible lucky, fortunate and still a very good piece of business by the club and shows the transfer team to be very adept in their negotiating process as in the end we bought a superior player for less than Koulibaly would have cost.

And the main point was the reason the deal broke down for Koulibaly was not that the bid was not high enough but because Napoli couldn't attract the player they wanted as a replacement not because we were faffing about and had waited to long to put a reasonable bid in, if either Lindelof or Manolas wanted to go to Napoli the transfer would have happened IMO.

Yes you never know if we had chucked £60-65m at them straight away Man City and United esque and spent way more than the player is worth we may have got him but for a club that is now spending within its means, would you be happy if that meant someone like Fabregas who was behind Oscar at this point in the season had to be sold or loaned in order to "fund" the transfer.  

If you want to point to a transfer saga that we did piss up the wall, that would be the Stones saga, but funnily enough it looks like we dodged a bullet. I also think that we did learn from that experience and that Luiz is testament to that when it all went tits up we had a back up plan and pulled it off.

1 hour ago, DonAntonio said:

That's all well put and likely how it played out but you know the situation from the start, make a  offer from the start enough to tempt them to hurry to find a replacement, if on week one we said 50 million, the deal would have got done.

That's how city negotiate and they always get their man. When dealing in complicated circumstances like this deal you can't take an approach that would be reasonable under perfect circumstances, you have an awkward owner, a team without the need for money as they just sold Higuain and no like for like replacement for the man you want...normal tactics don't work in such cases you need a head turning offer or don't bother wasting your time. 

Unfortunately I don't think we have the capacity or are willing to overspend on a Manchester city/ United level but I do get your point we could have potentially pushed the deal through in the first month of the window but I think it would have taken £60-65m which unfortunately I don't think we were willing to spend.

I think the way we went about it is the only way we would have been able to get him at a price we thought reasonable, rightly or wrongly.

Zouma seems like hes going off on a permanent transfer, Koulibaly seems a much better player at this very moment. And us playing 3 at the back, we need some real quality

12 minutes ago, PedroMendez said:

Unfortunately I don't think we have the capacity or are willing to overspend on a Manchester city/ United level but I do get your point we could have potentially pushed the deal through in the first month of the window but I think it would have taken £60-65m which unfortunately I don't think we were willing to spend.

I think the way we went about it is the only way we would have been able to get him at a price we thought reasonable, rightly or wrongly.

It may be we have begun adopting City tactics a 60 million gbp offer for Sandro apparently accepted 

3 minutes ago, DonAntonio said:

It may be we have begun adopting City tactics a 60 million gbp offer for Sandro apparently accepted 

Hopefully but I don't think £60m for Sandro is over spending he's mustard.

I also don't think the board does either the first bid was apparently £55m.

Edited June 18, 20179 yr by PedroMendez

On 17/06/2017 at 17:18, Barrettinator said:

This is like when fans are having a go at an underperforming manager and other fans say "do you know more than the manager? Well be quiet then!".

I don't need to be a chef to know a good steak. It's clear Marina and co aren't doing something right. Or at least haven't been doing things the easier way for the last 3 or so windows.

There is no reason why you, or I for that matter, cannot have accurate opinions about football and good ideas about what should, or should not, be done. We don't need to be football professionals to know what we're talking about; we just need to know what we're talking about. Those who imagine that negotiating football transfers is a simple business clearly don't.

This summer many Chelsea fans are comparing our negotiators unfavourably to Man City's and asserting that we should just get it done like they do. Last summer however, when we signed Kante, the boot was on the other foot. Their fans, or some of them at any rate, were complaining about their club's methods. As one post on BlueMoon put it, " Fee agreed yesterday, signed today. If only our transfer negotiators were that efficient. Takes the piss really." His simplistic way of looking at things was just as wrong of course as the simplistic way some Chelsea fans look at our transfer dealings. We got Kante done because it was doable. No more, no less. City got Silva and Eduardo done because those deals were doable, but they don't seem to be having any less difficulty with their other business than we are. Walking in, asking for the price, then paying, or not paying it is a beautiful idea but it's not fit for purpose I'm afraid.

There is plenty of room for people to doubt the quality of our negotiating team if they want to. When they couch those criticisms in terms which demonstrate a lack of understanding about the challenges Marina, and others, face however, then they can't expect their observations to get a free pass.

Edited June 19, 20179 yr by OhForAGreavsie

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

There is no reason why you, or I for that matter, cannot have accurate opinions about football and good ideas about what should, or should not, be done. We don't need to be football professionals to know what we're talking about; we just need to know what we're talking about. Those who imagine that negotiating football transfers is a simple business clearly don't.

This summer many Chelsea fans are comparing our negotiators unfavourably to Man City's and asserting that we should just get it done like they do. Last summer however, when we signed Kante, the boot was on the other foot. Their fans, or some of them at any rate, were complaining about their club's methods. As one post on BlueMoon put it, " Fee agreed yesterday, signed today. If only our transfer negotiators were that efficient. Takes the piss really." His simplistic way of looking at things was just as wrong of course as the simplistic way some Chelsea fans look at our transfer dealings. We got Kante done because it was doable. No more, no less. City got Silva and Eduardo done because those deals were doable, but they don't seem to be having any less difficulty with their other business than we are. Walking in, asking for the price, then paying, or not paying it is a beautiful idea but it's not fit for purpose I'm afraid.

There is plenty of room for people to doubt the quality of our negotiating team if they want to. When they couch those criticisms in terms which demonstrate a lack of understanding about the challenges Marina, and others, face however, then they can't expect their observations to get a free pass.

Well I guess it's like buying a car.......you might f**k about back and forth negotiating a price on a Ford or other average car, but you just pay the asking price on a Veyron.....either you want it or not...if you want it you pay the asking price.  City do not piss around, or so it appears, they just pay the price and get the deal done. Unless the club announces 2 or 3 signings on July 1st, (i think someone posted that signings will be revealed on that day) then we are seemingly leaving it late again to get a squad assembled to challenge for the title and CL.  The Costa / Conte fiasco followed by the Conte / Club rumours have certainly taken the edge off what was expected to be an exciting transfer window for us; seems we might be heading for some stormy times ahead.  I guess we'll wait and see.

25 minutes ago, CFCCAN said:

Well I guess it's like buying a car.......you might f**k about back and forth negotiating a price on a Ford or other average car, but you just pay the asking price on a Veyron.....either you want it or not...if you want it you pay the asking price.  City do not piss around, or so it appears, they just pay the price and get the deal done. Unless the club announces 2 or 3 signings on July 1st, (i think someone posted that signings will be revealed on that day) then we are seemingly leaving it late again to get a squad assembled to challenge for the title and CL.  The Costa / Conte fiasco followed by the Conte / Club rumours have certainly taken the edge off what was expected to be an exciting transfer window for us; seems we might be heading for some stormy times ahead.  I guess we'll wait and see.

OK, what's the asking price for Mendy and why haven't they paid it yet? How much have Arsenal quoted them for Sanchez, or Spurs for Walker or Rose? Why are they even bothering to consider a third left back in Bertrand when, if they were as confident in their abilities as you seem to be, they should expect to get both targets A & B anyway?

When are people going to accept that unless clubs actively want to sell, or a forced to do so by a clause, they do not name a price? They don't do that because it weakens ther negotiating position. They basically say the player is not for sale unless you make us an exceptional offer. Then they sit back and reject offer after offer waiting to see how high you will go.

And what if you walk away? Fine they have a great player who they are quite happy to keep anyway.

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

There is no reason why you, or I for that matter, cannot have accurate opinions about football and good ideas about what should, or should not, be done. We don't need to be football professionals to know what we're talking about; we just need to know what we're talking about. Those who imagine that negotiating football transfers is a simple business clearly don't.

This summer many Chelsea fans are comparing our negotiators unfavourably to Man City's and asserting that we should just get it done like they do. Last summer however, when we signed Kante, the boot was on the other foot. Their fans, or some of them at any rate, were complaining about their club's methods. As one post on BlueMoon put it, " Fee agreed yesterday, signed today. If only our transfer negotiators were that efficient. Takes the piss really." His simplistic way of looking at things was just as wrong of course as the simplistic way some Chelsea fans look at our transfer dealings. We got Kante done because it was doable. No more, no less. City got Silva and Eduardo done because those deals were doable, but they don't seem to be having any less difficulty with their other business than we are. Walking in, asking for the price, then paying, or not paying it is a beautiful idea but it's not fit for purpose I'm afraid.

There is plenty of room for people to doubt the quality of our negotiating team if they want to. When they couch those criticisms in terms which demonstrate a lack of understanding about the challenges Marina, and others, face however, then they can't expect their observations to get a free pass.

You have to understand though that a lot of the frustrations with Marina and co aren't invalid. Especially after the terrible 2015 summer. And when you consider the recent trend we've had of pissing about the summer after winning a title (2010, 2015), it seems like the board have developed a habit of complacency post title wins. It would be utterly stupid to repeat the same mistake this summer.

I do understand that they're not just sitting on their arses all day and that they're working to get certain deals done. I just hope we do it the right way this time. A Koulibaly/Stones repeat would be terrible for us and would waste our time. I've had knee jerk reactions this summer already (after City signed Silva) but I've decided to cut the board some slack. If by July 1st, we still don't have any real targets nailed then I think it'll be time to panic again.

30 minutes ago, Barrettinator said:

You have to understand though that a lot of the frustrations with Marina and co aren't invalid. Especially after the terrible 2015 summer. And when you consider the recent trend we've had of pissing about the summer after winning a title (2010, 2015), it seems like the board have developed a habit of complacency post title wins. It would be utterly stupid to repeat the same mistake this summer.

I do understand that they're not just sitting on their arses all day and that they're working to get certain deals done. I just hope we do it the right way this time. A Koulibaly/Stones repeat would be terrible for us and would waste our time. I've had knee jerk reactions this summer already (after City signed Silva) but I've decided to cut the board some slack. If by July 1st, we still don't have any real targets nailed then I think it'll be time to panic again.

2015 was mainly Jose's fault.And we have got targets nailed on, we have signed 3 players as good as.

Edited June 19, 20179 yr by Argo

55 minutes ago, Argo said:

2015 was mainly Jose's fault.And we have got targets nailed on, we have signed 3 players as good as.

Er, I still need to see them to believe it.  We have the whole of July to see if that occurs.

41 minutes ago, lchk said:

Er, I still need to see them to believe it.  We have the whole of July to see if that occurs.

Same noices are being made re Lukaku and Baka that were Costa and Luis, neithe of those two were announced till mid July but it was inevitable.

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 01:03, PedroMendez said:

If you want to point to a transfer saga that we did piss up the wall, that would be the Stones saga, but funnily enough it looks like we dodged a bullet. I also think that we did learn from that experience and that Luiz is testament to that when it all went tits up we had a back up plan and pulled it off.

We may have dodged one bullet but due to that fiasco Djilobodji was bought and we missed Alderweireld 

We could have lined up with a back 3 of Toby, Luiz and Azpi this season. That's a backline good enough for the CL

4 hours ago, Deino said:

We may have dodged one bullet but due to that fiasco Djilobodji was bought and we missed Alderweireld 

We could have lined up with a back 3 of Toby, Luiz and Azpi this season. That's a backline good enough for the CL

Yeah I don't think anyone can deny it was a fiasco,

On another note I don't really rate Alderweireld think he is solid but nothing special, as with most of the Tottenham squad I think Poch makes the most out of him and covers a lot of his flaws, I think Conte would do the same but don't see him as much if at all better than Cahill.