The Board

[MoroccanBlue 5,296]

42 minutes ago, Mana said:

Oh you are cute! Just focusing on Chelsea, without bringing up Arsenal's failure signings? Since you are not going to do that, let me do that for you.

Takuma Asano, Lucas Pérez, , Konstantinos

Got rid of those that were signed before Marina was appointed. 

Asano wasn't able to get a work permit. Only cost the club 2 million. 

Ill give you Lucas Perez. Still vastly cheaper than Drinkwater, Bakayoko, Zappacosta, and Rahman. 

Kostantinos is only 21 and cost the club 114K. 

42 minutes ago, Mana said:

And remind me, who has won more trophies between the two clubs within that period?

We did. Because Arsenal can't compete with us financially given we have an ambitious owner. 

42 minutes ago, Mana said:

 

And that's why Arsenal will always be bigger than those clubs. So stop mentioning them, they are not in the same ballpark.

And for the Milan clubs, that's their own fault. They didn't change with modern football so they were left behind. Not to mention, they don't have the spending power PL top 6 side has.

But I thought success was based on trophies and history? You said so yourself? Arsenal is a dwarf compared to Inter, Benfica, Porto, and Milan. Arsenal have no European Pedigree.

Having an owner that fails to invest in a club, in this current economic climate, will end in a club's demise. The market will continue to be inflated. You can see my edited post that Arsenal will follow in the same path as Milan. What sped up Milan's downfall, was poor player investment. 

42 minutes ago, Mana said:

Sunderland =/= Arsenal. Sunderland are a small club that has little spending power, and the way they run is different. Use your brain.

Are you doing this on purpose? Ignoring everything I said?

THE BOARD ARE FULL OF KROENKE'S YES MEN.

So yes, they share the same brain because whatever Kroenke says, they obey.

So Kroenke chooses the players to buy? A man who doesn't even watch football let alone attend Arsenal games?  

Sunderland Till I die shows the inner operations of a club that has a disinterested owner. Members of the board desperately wanted to sign certain players, but didn't have the funds to do so. So they had to make do with what they had. That is exactly what the Arsenal board are doing. Making do with what they have because of a disinterested owner. To deny that is the case is just absurd. 

 

[Vesper 28,769]

Arsenal's board are not top rate, but have made less overall strategic blunders than ours has in past 5 years.

Let's list their BIG fails (please let me know if I forgot any)

The huge contract to Özil (idiots on that)

Due to that, they will lose Ramsey on a free (they should have sold him this past summer, but felt they needed him (they did and do) and also thought he would cave (he didnt, so off to Juve he goes, where I think he just might really play well)

Also due to contract issues, they lost Alexis, BUT they dodged 2 bullets (they didnt cave in and give him a huge contract) and he also has massively declined as a player, PLUS they did get Henrikh Mkhitaryan in the swap, which, for ony 6 months left in Alexis contract, is not terrible. Mkhitaryan is hardly a superstar, but he has played well at times (if he was on full time minutes pace he would end up with around 25 total goals produced this year, 12 goals, 12 assists)

Shkodran Mustafi  has been oki, a regular starter, but they did overpay a bit IMHO

They also did lose Jack Wilshere on a free, but that is nowhere near as bad as losing Ramsey

Yes, they have made some stupid buys, and taken gambles, but none of them were for huge quid losses

plus

on the good side (some great, some fairly good, none horrid at all)

Lucas Torreira (great buy)

Bernd Leno looks to really be coming good the last 3 months

Sokratis (not great, but was cheap and has had his share of good games)

Mattéo Guendouzi  (great buy)

Sead Kolasinac (on a free)

Denis Suárez (short loan and may not be kept, has played oki at times, but doesnt seem to fit in to emery style, but due to this only a loan, and it had decent potential, I give this a barely positive)

Granit Xhaka (I rate this the same as Suarez, a barely positive, due to cost, he has his monets, but also can make mistakes, very up and down player, jury still out for full level) certainly is mile beyond Drinkwater and Bakayoko

Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang  (great buy)

Alexandre Lacazette  (overall, a  good buy, 25 total goals produced  (14 goals and 11 assists) this year in only 2400 minutes)

Reiss Nelson (brilliant loan move and probably soon a star for them)

Finally, they have a big, somewhat new, deffo modern stadium for over a decade that massively helps with revenue

and no bans

 

overall, despite their less than ideal owner

they have done better than our shit show of a board in last 5 years

they are in the bottom half of the top 30 teams in terms of board, maybe even bottom 7 or 8, but not at our shambolic level

the main thing we do have is trophies by the bucket load, but most all of those came as a result from moves made more than 4 or 5 years ago, and some of the newer moves (Conte, etc) have already been fucked up

only massively brilliant move still around that occurred in last 5 years is Kante, and 2 good ones (Rudiger and Kepa)

Pedro, well oki, but not close to those other 3 overall, but a positive I think (he is coming to end of his time soon anyway, due to age)

bring in 3 superior players (only one so far who can be called truly great) in over 5 years, whilst making so, so many crazy bad moves, horrific sales, horrific buys, stupid contract handling, now no new stadium, and also the fucking bans

adds up to worst run top 20 club i world atm (AC Milan seems to be sorting themselves out, and their blunders are hundreds of millions of pounds less than ours en toto)

 

 

 

[communicate 2,703]

20 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

You are clearly not seeing my point. 

I don't see a board, who can only utilise funds that were generated by the operations of the club, more incompetent than a board who wastes unlimited funds generated by the owner. Especially when we reflect on how those funds were used. I don't see how you can rationally compare the two. Arsenal aren't a big club anymore and the board are only doing with what they are given. The owner and board are two separate entities. Goodness sake look at Sunderland before they got relegated. 

If we are ranking board incompetence, it needs to be rationally compared to a club that is operated in the same way. 

Man City (2016 - Present)

Mahrez - 65 Million, Laporte - 65 Million, Mendy - 57 Million, Walker - 52 million, Ederson - 40 Million, Danilo - 30 Million, Bernardo Silva - 50 Million, Stones - 50 Million, Sane - 50 million, Jesus - 32 Million, Gundogan - 27 Million = 518 Million 

Chelsea (2016 - Present)

Kepa - 80 Million, Pulisic - 65 Million, Jorginho - 57 Million, Morata - 66 Million, Bakayoko - 40 Million, Drinkwater - 37 Million, Rudiger - 35 Million, Zappacosta - 25 Million, Emerson - 20 Million, Giroud - 17 Million, Barkley - 17 Million, Batshuayi - 40 Million, Kante - 35 Million, David Luiz - 35 Million, Marcos Alonso - 25 Million = 594 Million 

 

 

That is a horrible argument. It is different spending 500 m when you don't sell anybody with spending 500 m when you have to sell your key player. We have sold courtois, Costa, Cesc and matic. All key players for us and Pulisic hasn't even kicked a ball yet. 

Comparing us to city is a dumb argument. They target the best player they can get. They won't target player like Alonso, Emerson and zappacosta because they can afford getting the best player they can get. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,296]

2 hours ago, communicate said:

That is a horrible argument. It is different spending 500 m when you don't sell anybody with spending 500 m when you have to sell your key player. We have sold courtois, Costa, Cesc and matic. All key players for us and Pulisic hasn't even kicked a ball yet. 

Comparing us to city is a dumb argument. They target the best player they can get. They won't target player like Alonso, Emerson and zappacosta because they can afford getting the best player they can get. 

How is it a dumb argument? Have you even comprehended by point? It's not about how much we spend, it's about how effectively we utilise our funds. That is how you measure efficiency for Christ sake. 

Spending nearly 200 Million on average players in Morata, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Alonso, and Zappacosta is as inefficient as you can get. Of course City won't target that because they have an efficient board with a director of football. WHICH IS MY ENTIRE POINT. 

2 hours ago, Mana said:

I'm not continuing with this discussion anymore due to time and time again, this question has been avoided.

Because I'm not going to waste my time with such a vacuous false equivalence. Especially when your only supporting argument is "The board won't challenge him because they are his best mates" 

[communicate 2,703]

1 hour ago, MoroccanBlue said:

How is it a dumb argument? Have you even comprehended by point? It's not about how much we spend, it's about how effectively we utilise our funds. That is how you measure efficiency for Christ sake. 

Spending nearly 200 Million on average players in Morata, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Alonso, and Zappacosta is as inefficient as you can get. Of course City won't target that because they have an efficient board with a director of football. WHICH IS MY ENTIRE POINT. 

Because I'm not going to waste my time with such a vacuous false equivalence. Especially when your only supporting argument is "The board won't challenge him because they are his best mates" 

Because comparing us to city is just dumb. City transfer budget far eclipse ours. It is not oh 500 m spend. If we can spend on players without selling anyone is completely different to sign player because we have sold somebody

If city has to sell sterling and sane when they sign Bernardo silva and mahrez then you can compare us to city. City this season signed mahrez for 60m just to be their backup winger. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,296]

37 minutes ago, communicate said:

Because comparing us to city is just dumb. City transfer budget far eclipse ours. It is not oh 500 m spend. If we can spend on players without selling anyone is completely different to sign player because we have sold somebody

If city has to sell sterling and sane when they sign Bernardo silva and mahrez then you can compare us to city. City this season signed mahrez for 60m just to be their backup winger. 

They've spent 65 million more than us as of 2018 since Pep's arrival. I wouldn't say that far eclipses ours given today's market. 

Also, net spend has nothing to do with how efficiently we utliise our funds. Doesn't matter if you have 500 million in the bank or if you have to sell before you have that 500 million, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is how you use that 500 million. 

 

 

[communicate 2,703]

14 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

They've spent 65 million more than us as of 2018 since Pep's arrival. I wouldn't say that far eclipses ours given today's market. 

Also, net spend has nothing to do with how efficiently we utliise our funds. Doesn't matter if you have 500 million in the bank or if you have to sell before you have that 500 million, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is how you use that 500 million. 

 

 

I am sorry your argument make no sense. Of course it does. I don't get it. Asumme I have a team worth 500 m, I sell all of them for 500 m and spend it on 500 m player. I will have a 500 m team. The other team also have 500 m of player and they spend "only" 450 m without selling anyone. They have a 950 m team.

This is a simplification of the matter but It does matter. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,296]

22 minutes ago, communicate said:

I am sorry your argument make no sense. Of course it does. I don't get it. Asumme I have a team worth 500 m, I sell all of them for 500 m and spend it on 500 m player. I will have a 500 m team. The other team also have 500 m of player and they spend "only" 450 m without selling anyone. They have a 950 m team.

This is a simplification of the matter but It does matter. 

 So City didn't sell anyone? 

Iheanacho Out. Jesus In

Nolito Out. B.Silva In

Fernando Out. Gundogan In

Kolarov Out. Mendy In

Clichy Out. Danilo In

Zabaleta Out. Walker In

Hart Out. Ederson In

Right. I'm the one not making sense 

 

 

[communicate 2,703]

7 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

 So City didn't sell anyone? 

Iheanacho Out. Jesus In

Nolito Out. B.Silva In

Fernando Out. Gundogan In

Kolarov Out. Mendy In

Clichy Out. Danilo In

Zabaleta Out. Walker In

Hart Out. Ederson In

Right. I'm the one not making sense 

 

 

Lol and lol and lol. Selling ineacho is like when we sell Bertrand traore. I don't even discuss them. Because they are not important player

Zavaleta, clichy and sagna are release for free because they are too old. Do I need to explain about us losing Gary Cahill or John Terry. 

Lol if city sell Aguero, kdb, Fernandinho or any of their key player then we can talk. Honestly, there is no point of arguing anymore. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,296]

Just now, communicate said:

Lol and lol and lol. Selling ineacho is like when we sell Bertrand traore. I don't even discuss them. Because they are not important player

Zavaleta, clichy and sagna are release for free because they are too old. Do I need to explain about us losing Gary Cahill or John Terry. 

Lol if city sell Aguero, kdb, Fernandinho or any of their key player then we can talk. Honestly, there is no point of arguing anymore. 

So now you've gone from they're not selling anyone, to they aren't important players.  Nice deflection. 

And you're still wrong. 

Iheanacho had the same role as Jesus. 

Fernando had the same role as Gundogan. 

Clichy, Zabaleta, and Kalorov had the same role as Danilo, Mendy, and Walker...which were starter roles. 

Nolito had the same role as B.Silva. 

These are key players that City upgraded on. Because they utilised their funds effectively. What did we do? Overspent on average players which did nothing but made us worse. 

 

 

[the wes 7,212]

Chelsea have held talks over a £2.6 million deal to bring Luis Campos to the club from Lille.

According to a report from Goal, both Roma and Chelsea are eager to bring in the well-respected sporting director, but it will come at a cost.

[Fernando 6,453]

Hopefully is true. He did good with Monaco. 

[OneMoSalah 8,776]

Campos would be a good move although I still think, as seen with Monchi at Roma, it is not guaranteed to work. Theres a lot of parameters which need to be looked at.

1) progession for young players to the first 11/18 man squad and developing them more in house as opposed to out on loan

2) signing the right profile of players for the philosophy Sarri is trying to implenent.

3) the actual working relationship with Sarri and the rest of the board. Will be the biggest one for me, how will they manage it.

4) short and long term planning, weve alwaya focused on 1 or 2 years down the line and competing without also thinking more long term. The likes of Christensen, CHO and RLC are proof of that, they should have been used more regularly this season (Sarris first season, RLCs back hasnt helped and managers lack of rotation) but hopefully next year they feature a lot sooner on a regular basis and will have shown Sarri he can lean on them more, similarly like Christensen showed Conte last season for a good few months before struggling.

5) signing ready made players as well as younger ones. Another big issue I think. No point flooding our 18 with just young guys because weve seen how demanding the PL is and having players in their best years is also very helpful, look at our team under Jose, Cesc, Hazard, Costa all very established players already by then. We need that balance. Even Liverpool and City, guys who are very established and experienced have helped their new guys settle in while remaining competitive.

 

[the wes 7,212]

Utd Chelsea and the gunners are interested in Paul Mitchell 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11690968/manchester-united-chelsea-and-arsenal-all-chasing-paul-mitchell

[Vesper 28,769]

Chelsea targeted by three groups in £2.5bn race to buy club with US and Asian-based groups keen and Britain's richest man Jim Ratcliffe interested

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6919569/Chelsea-targeted-three-groups-2-5bn-race-buy-club.html

[Nicco 927]

11 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Chelsea targeted by three groups in £2.5bn race to buy club with US and Asian-based groups keen and Britain's richest man Jim Ratcliffe interested

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6919569/Chelsea-targeted-three-groups-2-5bn-race-buy-club.html

Worrying times if it's any of those 2 based groups as they will will probably try to make this a business. Why aren't we linked to the Arab I don't understand, the Glazers won't sell and we're located in London.

[Superblue 6,370]

23 hours ago, Nicco said:

Worrying times if it's any of those 2 based groups as they will will probably try to make this a business. Why aren't we linked to the Arab I don't understand, the Glazers won't sell and we're located in London.

Absolutely.

No doubt our board have made mistakes and changes do need to be made, but actually replacing Abramovich is a huge call and sometimes it's better the devil you know.

Even in recent seasons Abramovich has still sanctioned big moves in the transfer market. It's a completely different discussion that most have not worked out.

With the money being pumped into English football currently, more foreign investors are viewing the clubs as a potential cash cow. 

[Vesper 28,769]

CIES Football Observatory

n°260 - 29/04/2019

Demography

RB Leipzig signed its footballers at the youngest age

http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2018/260/en/

The 260th edition of the CIES Football Observatory Weekly Post analyses the age at which players fielded during this season in 24 European top divisions were signed by their clubs of employment. Academy graduates are not included in the sample. RB Leipzig recruited its footballers at the youngest age (21.43 years on average), while MKE Ankaragücü signed them at the oldest one (29.28 years).

The second and third lowest values for age at recruitment at big-5 league level were registered for two other teams with a transfer strategy clearly focused on the signing of young talents: Real Madrid (21.95 years on average) and Olympique Lyonnais (22.64 years). Many other very competitive teams are in the top 20 positions of the rankings. At the opposite end of the table is Parma (27.35 years).

CSKA Moskva is the club from the 19 further European top divisions surveyed that signed its squad members at the youngest age: 21.9 years on average. The Russian side outranks the club having fielded so far the youngest footballers in domestic league games during current season: FC Nordsjælland (see Demographic Atlas). At third position is RB Salzburg, ahead of five Dutch and two Belgian teams.

Average age at recruitment

Players fielded in domestic league matches since the start of the season - Not including academy graduates

Youngest, Big-5 leagues

 

Oldest, Big-5 leagues