Football Season 2013/14 & Summer Window - Page 538

TheDaddy · 14-05-2014, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

Only because Roman insist on it.

So it works for them then, works for real Madrid to

thenry · 14-05-2014, 13:09

Romans had a brilliant strategy in hindsight

iadom · 14-05-2014, 15:12

But unlike Norwich, Cardiff etc, Chelski and Real Madrid also throw countless millions onto the pitch as well, and Man City have gone through a few managers recently but they are also doing well due to the massive financial investment.

Mr Pharmacist · 14-05-2014, 15:17

As bizarre as it might sound, I think Roman is possibly the longest serving outright owner of a Premier League club.

colin25 · 14-05-2014, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pharmacist

As bizarre as it might sound, I think Roman is possibly the longest serving outright owner of a Premier League club.

Sigh, longest manager, longest out right owner yada yada yada

None of that matters. Results count, and once season is over, you look to the next season. Everyone starts at the same level, and then it gets interesting.

Mr Pharmacist · 14-05-2014, 17:13

The owner doesn't matter? Course he does Colin. We kept getting told he'd be gone within a couple of years, yet it turns out he's possibly what I posted. It's a bizarre thought, that's all, nothing more. It's not intended as a slight on anything or anyone else.

colin25 · 14-05-2014, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pharmacist

The owner doesn't matter? Course he does Colin. We kept getting told he'd be gone within a couple of years, yet it turns out he's possibly what I posted. It's a bizarre thought, that's all, nothing more. It's not intended as a slight on anything or anyone else.

Then newcastle should be ecstatic, their owner is still there.

Mr Pharmacist · 14-05-2014, 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by colin25

Then newcastle should be ecstatic, their owner is still there.

But he's not there for the same reasons mine and yours are. Have I annoyed you or something?

denphone · 14-05-2014, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by colin25

Then newcastle should be ecstatic, their owner is still there.

And so is the idiot Pardew.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27410692

colin25 · 14-05-2014, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pharmacist

But he's not there for the same reasons mine and yours are. Have I annoyed you or something?

Sorry, not attacking you. Just saying that whether a club has had a manager (arsenal), an owner (chelsea) for the longest (or longer) period, doesn't make any club better or worse than others.

It is the players, and ultimately the results that count.

**Damien** · 14-05-2014, 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by colin25

Sorry, not attacking you. Just saying that whether a club has had a manager (arsenal), an owner (chelsea) for the longest (or longer) period, doesn't make any club better or worse than others.

It is the players, and ultimately the results that count.

The question is how do you get to achieve those results? I can't agree that Southampton are not one of the best run clubs in the country when you look at the amount of talented players they've produced but the results are not spectacular by Premier League standards.

Also I think you either need to spend a lot on great players or give a manager time to build a squad. What Wenger did with his first post Emirates team was an achievement even if he didn't have the trophy to show it.

Spurs want instant success but don't want to pay for it and as such they have a merry-go-round of managers. One season, maybe next season, they'll break into the top 4 again but the mismanagement of the club would leave me to suspect it would be temporary. They had one manager who did break into the top 4, twice, and still they fired him because the second time Levy actually wanted third (as Chelsea won the Champions League). They allowed AVB to spend £100 million on players and then fired him a few months into the season because he had a bad spell, not even an especially serious one, and now have lumbered a subsequent manager with a expense squad he didn't assemble.

Most clubs cannot afford a City or Chelsea style blowout on a team. They need to find other ways to build their squad and slow investment over several seasons (United, Liverpool) or promoting youth (Southampton) are the best ways to go. IMO.

In the end it's only 'the players' if you really outclass everyone. Otherwise it's the manager and the team as a whole. Liverpool almost beat City to the title and they have, overall, far worse players than City.

Shadow Demon UK · 14-05-2014, 22:40

8 major European finals lost in a row now for Benfica. Maybe the curse is real...?

TheDaddy · 15-05-2014, 01:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by iadom

But unlike Norwich, Cardiff etc, Chelski and Real Madrid also throw countless millions onto the pitch as well, and Man City have gone through a few managers recently but they are also doing well due to the massive financial investment.

Cardiff and Norwich we're the third and fifth highest spenders in the summer but that's irrelevant to the original question anyway.

colin25 · 15-05-2014, 05:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

The question is how do you get to achieve those results? I can't agree that Southampton are not one of the best run clubs in the country when you look at the amount of talented players they've produced but the results are not spectacular by Premier League standards.

Also I think you either need to spend a lot on great players or give a manager time to build a squad. What Wenger did with his first post Emirates team was an achievement even if he didn't have the trophy to show it.

Spurs want instant success but don't want to pay for it and as such they have a merry-go-round of managers. One season, maybe next season, they'll break into the top 4 again but the mismanagement of the club would leave me to suspect it would be temporary. They had one manager who did break into the top 4, twice, and still they fired him because the second time Levy actually wanted third (as Chelsea won the Champions League). They allowed AVB to spend £100 million on players and then fired him a few months into the season because he had a bad spell, not even an especially serious one, and now have lumbered a subsequent manager with a expense squad he didn't assemble.

Most clubs cannot afford a City or Chelsea style blowout on a team. They need to find other ways to build their squad and slow investment over several seasons (United, Liverpool) or promoting youth (Southampton) are the best ways to go. IMO.

In the end it's only 'the players' if you really outclass everyone. Otherwise it's the manager and the team as a whole. Liverpool almost beat City to the title and they have, overall, far worse players than City.

Sorry, I was just pointing out that longevity does not make a good manager or owner.

You can still have good manager, and change every few years. That then begs question, what constitutes a good season. For some teams, playing good football and being in the "mix" is a good season. Eg Swansea last year, southhampton this year. It is up to each club to measure that success.

Look at liverpool, and crystal palace, bot touted as best managers of the year, and no trophies

denphone · 15-05-2014, 06:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow Demon UK

8 major European finals lost in a row now for Benfica. Maybe the curse is real...?

Its such a shame as it reminds me of Jimmy White in the snooker who reached 6 finals and never won any.