The transfer strategy

[mammutly]

Never before have the management of this club been able to even consider a transfer strategy beyond a swap deal.
Never had the power to be taken seriously if we said we wanted to sign the England Captain.
Now we can. When we want where we want & who we want.

It does destabilise other teams - makes the players question what they are doing.I would say this is strategy being played out in front of our eyes.

Do you have any proof of that?
There is always speculation about good players. I don't see top professionals losing form because it is said that another club wants to buy them.
Christ on a bike! Half the premiership would be running around like headless chickens and clubs would be bombarded with false bids all the time.

The thing is, if West Ham put a bid in for John Terry. People would laugh. When we do it, people laugh, see our perfectly straigh faces, and the laughter turns to shock.

Anyway, why don't you want him talking like this? Would you prefer times of old when we sounded like Andy fuckin Pipkin goin "I want that one, I want that one, I don't like it, I want that one"?

I think the notion that John Terry might suffer a loss of form because another team has put a bid in for him is ridiculous. Any player who was that susceptible to pressure would never have made it to the top in the first place.

Plus, though I don't think this is necessarily the case either, who's to say that putting a bid in for a player might not actually have the opposite effect of inspiring them to play even better?

The club try to find the best players they can get for the job. Where they come from is irrelevant in strategic terms.

 

[Rösler's Dad]

Never before have the management of this club been able to even consider a transfer strategy beyond a swap deal.
Never had the power to be taken seriously if we said we wanted to sign the England Captain.
Now we can. When we want where we want & who we want.

It does destabilise other teams - makes the players question what they are doing.I would say this is strategy being played out in front of our eyes.

Do you have any proof of that?
There is always speculation about good players. I don't see top professionals losing form because it is said that another club wants to buy them.
Christ on a bike! Half the premiership would be running around like headless chickens and clubs would be bombarded with false bids all the time.

The thing is, if West Ham put a bid in for John Terry. People would laugh. When we do it, people laugh, see our perfectly straigh faces, and the laughter turns to shock.

Anyway, why don't you want him talking like this? Would you prefer times of old when we sounded like Andy fuckin Pipkin goin "I want that one, I want that one, I don't like it, I want that one"?

I think the notion that John Terry might suffer a loss of form because another team has put a bid in for him is ridiculous. Any player who was that susceptible to pressure would never have made it to the top in the first place.

Plus, though I don't think this is necessarily the case either, who's to say that putting a bid in for a player might not actually have the opposite effect of inspiring them to play even better?

The club try to find the best players they can get for the job. Where they come from is irrelevant in strategic terms.

Mammutly, surely the intention is not to weaken the opposition by putting in a bid only (as you say, on its own that's not enough) but actually by signing them? It seems to me we are quite serious in wanting Terry; and it's surely not a poor by-product of that to make them realize they are no longer the side in the prem with the most cash? It's also quite arguable that if he comes to us it will weaken them on the pitch.

Maybe that's irrelevant strategically, it's sure as hell not irrelevant tactically.

 

[1961RICH]

Never before have the management of this club been able to even consider a transfer strategy beyond a swap deal.
Never had the power to be taken seriously if we said we wanted to sign the England Captain.
Now we can. When we want where we want & who we want.

It does destabilise other teams - makes the players question what they are doing.I would say this is strategy being played out in front of our eyes.

Do you have any proof of that?
There is always speculation about good players. I don't see top professionals losing form because it is said that another club wants to buy them.
Christ on a bike! Half the premiership would be running around like headless chickens and clubs would be bombarded with false bids all the time.

When Terry had nowhere to go he was going to be at Chelsea for the rest of his life. Now, it appears, he wants to talk to us. O'Neill concluded the Barry transfer double quick to prevent a protracted disruptive morale sapping saga developing.

How often do we see the papers knocking us, other clubs complaining and stirring trouble then these forums slagging off our own club.

No mate no proof, We would have to be inside to see that but I think this certainly mounts the pressure and eventually cracks appear. That is what the club are starting to deal with & fight back with the resources we have.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Never before have the management of this club been able to even consider a transfer strategy beyond a swap deal.
Never had the power to be taken seriously if we said we wanted to sign the England Captain.
Now we can. When we want where we want & who we want.

It does destabilise other teams - makes the players question what they are doing.I would say this is strategy being played out in front of our eyes.

Do you have any proof of that?
There is always speculation about good players. I don't see top professionals losing form because it is said that another club wants to buy them.
Christ on a bike! Half the premiership would be running around like headless chickens and clubs would be bombarded with false bids all the time.

The thing is, if West Ham put a bid in for John Terry. People would laugh. When we do it, people laugh, see our perfectly straigh faces, and the laughter turns to shock.

Anyway, why don't you want him talking like this? Would you prefer times of old when we sounded like Andy fuckin Pipkin goin "I want that one, I want that one, I don't like it, I want that one"?

I think the notion that John Terry might suffer a loss of form because another team has put a bid in for him is ridiculous. Any player who was that susceptible to pressure would never have made it to the top in the first place.

Plus, though I don't think this is necessarily the case either, who's to say that putting a bid in for a player might not actually have the opposite effect of inspiring them to play even better?

The club try to find the best players they can get for the job. Where they come from is irrelevant in strategic terms.

Actually, it's not completely irrelevant. Abramovic's strategy in Russian sport was to weaken the oppo whilst strengthening his own team. As soon as he got the chance he went for all of Utd' s main transfer targets. If the rags had signed Essien & Robben they, not Chelsea, would have won the league at the time. If Gerrard had signed for Chelsea, Liverpool would be history. They took Cole from Arsenal & if rumours are to be believed, just tried, along with us, to get Van Persie.

We have weakened Villa (Barry), Utd (Tevez) & should we get Lescott & Terry will significantly weaken both their clubs. Utd have been doing it for years, Cantona being a prime example.

 

[DancingBadger]

Actually, it's not completely irrelevant. Abramovic's strategy in Russian sport was to weaken the oppo whilst strengthening his own team. As soon as he got the chance he went for all of Utd' s main transfer targets. If the rags had signed Essien & Robben they, not Chelsea, would have won the league at the time. If Gerrard had signed for Chelsea, Liverpool would be history. They took Cole from Arsenal & if rumours are to be believed, just tried, along with us, to get Van Persie.

We have weakened Villa (Barry), Utd (Tevez) & should we get Lescott & Terry will significantly weaken both their clubs. Utd have been doing it for years, Cantona being a prime example.

This. I have read that Abramovic studies Sun Tzu, incidentally, and there was a feeling at the time that their pursuit and eventual purchase of SWP for well over his market value was in part driven by the desire to prevent him going to Arsenal. Chelsea certainly didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they rarely played him.

We are aiming for higher league position, ideally top 4. In order to do this, we have to build a better team than our rivals. Signing better players than those we currently have is obviously necessary to improve the side, any fool can see that, but if we can simultaneously weaken our rivals it gives us a greater advantage and improves our chances of achieving our aims. Strategy is all about trying to gain advantages. Anything which gives you an advantage is useful. And who is to say that the players we are targeting are not the ones who MH thinks are best in their position for our current circumstances?

It seems to me that there is a clear strategy here - target proven Premiership players, who are more likely than imports to slot straight into our side and won't suffer culture shock when they discover that we have football in January and it's cold here, and at the same time weaken our immediate rivals. The targeting of a "marquee" signing runs in parallel with this. I think it's very sensible.

 

[OB1]

Actually, it's not completely irrelevant. Abramovic's strategy in Russian sport was to weaken the oppo whilst strengthening his own team. As soon as he got the chance he went for all of Utd' s main transfer targets. If the rags had signed Essien & Robben they, not Chelsea, would have won the league at the time. If Gerrard had signed for Chelsea, Liverpool would be history. They took Cole from Arsenal & if rumours are to be believed, just tried, along with us, to get Van Persie.

We have weakened Villa (Barry), Utd (Tevez) & should we get Lescott & Terry will significantly weaken both their clubs. Utd have been doing it for years, Cantona being a prime example.

This. I have read that Abramovic studies Sun Tzu, incidentally, and there was a feeling at the time that their pursuit and eventual purchase of SWP for well over his market value was in part driven by the desire to prevent him going to Arsenal. Chelsea certainly didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they rarely played him.

We are aiming for higher league position, ideally top 4. In order to do this, we have to build a better team than our rivals. Signing better players than those we currently have is obviously necessary to improve the side, any fool can see that, but if we can simultaneously weaken our rivals it gives us a greater advantage and improves our chances of achieving our aims. Strategy is all about trying to gain advantages. Anything which gives you an advantage is useful. And who is to say that the players we are targeting are not the ones who MH thinks are best in their position for our current circumstances?

It seems to me that there is a clear strategy here - target proven Premiership players, who are more likely than imports to slot straight into our side and won't suffer culture shock when they discover that we have football in January and it's cold here, and at the same time weaken our immediate rivals. The targeting of a "marquee" signing runs in parallel with this. I think it's very sensible.

I would be amazed if this City management (football and general) have not taken into account all the benefits to City of buying some of their rivals best players and buying players that their rivals want. I'm sure though it's not the prime motivation behind their choice of targets but in the case of Barry it strengthens us weakens Villa, who are likely to find it very hard to replace him with a better player and also prevented Liverpool from getting him.

 

[mammutly]

Actually, it's not completely irrelevant. Abramovic's strategy in Russian sport was to weaken the oppo whilst strengthening his own team. As soon as he got the chance he went for all of Utd' s main transfer targets. If the rags had signed Essien & Robben they, not Chelsea, would have won the league at the time. If Gerrard had signed for Chelsea, Liverpool would be history. They took Cole from Arsenal & if rumours are to be believed, just tried, along with us, to get Van Persie.

We have weakened Villa (Barry), Utd (Tevez) & should we get Lescott & Terry will significantly weaken both their clubs. Utd have been doing it for years, Cantona being a prime example.

This. I have read that Abramovic studies Sun Tzu, incidentally, and there was a feeling at the time that their pursuit and eventual purchase of SWP for well over his market value was in part driven by the desire to prevent him going to Arsenal. Chelsea certainly didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they rarely played him.

We are aiming for higher league position, ideally top 4. In order to do this, we have to build a better team than our rivals. Signing better players than those we currently have is obviously necessary to improve the side, any fool can see that, but if we can simultaneously weaken our rivals it gives us a greater advantage and improves our chances of achieving our aims. Strategy is all about trying to gain advantages. Anything which gives you an advantage is useful. And who is to say that the players we are targeting are not the ones who MH thinks are best in their position for our current circumstances?

It seems to me that there is a clear strategy here - target proven Premiership players, who are more likely than imports to slot straight into our side and won't suffer culture shock when they discover that we have football in January and it's cold here, and at the same time weaken our immediate rivals. The targeting of a "marquee" signing runs in parallel with this. I think it's very sensible.

I would be amazed if this City management (football and general) have not taken into account all the benefits to City of buying some of their rivals best players and buying players that their rivals want. I'm sure though it's not the prime motivation behind their choice of targets but in the case of Barry it strengthens us weakens Villa, who are likely to find it very hard to replace him with a better player and also prevented Liverpool from getting him.

The primary consideration is strengthening our squad. IF that involves taking a player from a rival team, then all well and good. But crucially, if there was a better player in that position available elsewhere, then he would be the first target.

It's natural for top clubs to compete for the best players in the world but any notion of clubs spending multi millions just on the off chance of destabilising their rivals is pure pie in the sky.

In the case of Barry, it is well known that he and O'Neil were in conflict. He wanted to leave and his manger wanted him out. He was available. We didn't prise him from Villa against their will.

And what's this people are saying about us stealing Tevez from the rags?? He's a free agent FFS. Ferguson didn't care enough to keep him. IF we sign him it will be because we want him, not because it upsets the scum.

 

[bizzbo]

Actually, it's not completely irrelevant. Abramovic's strategy in Russian sport was to weaken the oppo whilst strengthening his own team. As soon as he got the chance he went for all of Utd' s main transfer targets. If the rags had signed Essien & Robben they, not Chelsea, would have won the league at the time. If Gerrard had signed for Chelsea, Liverpool would be history. They took Cole from Arsenal & if rumours are to be believed, just tried, along with us, to get Van Persie.

We have weakened Villa (Barry), Utd (Tevez) & should we get Lescott & Terry will significantly weaken both their clubs. Utd have been doing it for years, Cantona being a prime example.

This. I have read that Abramovic studies Sun Tzu, incidentally, and there was a feeling at the time that their pursuit and eventual purchase of SWP for well over his market value was in part driven by the desire to prevent him going to Arsenal. Chelsea certainly didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they rarely played him.

We are aiming for higher league position, ideally top 4. In order to do this, we have to build a better team than our rivals. Signing better players than those we currently have is obviously necessary to improve the side, any fool can see that, but if we can simultaneously weaken our rivals it gives us a greater advantage and improves our chances of achieving our aims. Strategy is all about trying to gain advantages. Anything which gives you an advantage is useful. And who is to say that the players we are targeting are not the ones who MH thinks are best in their position for our current circumstances?

It seems to me that there is a clear strategy here - target proven Premiership players, who are more likely than imports to slot straight into our side and won't suffer culture shock when they discover that we have football in January and it's cold here, and at the same time weaken our immediate rivals. The targeting of a "marquee" signing runs in parallel with this. I think it's very sensible.

I would be amazed if this City management (football and general) have not taken into account all the benefits to City of buying some of their rivals best players and buying players that their rivals want. I'm sure though it's not the prime motivation behind their choice of targets but in the case of Barry it strengthens us weakens Villa, who are likely to find it very hard to replace him with a better player and also prevented Liverpool from getting him.

The primary consideration is strengthening our squad. IF that involves taking a player from a rival team, then all well and good. But crucially, if there was a better player in that position available elsewhere, then he would be the first target.

It's natural for top clubs to compete for the best players in the world but any notion of clubs spending multi millions just on the off chance of destabilising their rivals is pure pie in the sky.

In the case of Barry, it is well known that he and O'Neil were in conflict. He wanted to leave and his manger wanted him out. He was available. We didn't prise him from Villa against their will.

And what's this people are saying about us stealing Tevez from the rags?? He's a free agent FFS. Ferguson didn't care enough to keep him. IF we sign him it will be because we want him, not because it upsets the scum.

it's a case of 'two birds with one stone'. dunno why you are on one about this!

 

[scousemanc]

Yep, I'm definitely glad that Cooky is running the club and not Mammutly!

 

[mammutly]

it's a case of 'two birds with one stone'. dunno why you are on one about this!

I agree. Nice if it happens but not intended.


The reason I'm 'on one' about this ( apart from the fact that I'm always on one about something) is that too many people are praising Hughes and Cook for being great and visionary leaders when all they have done is drawn up a list of targets and gone after them. Great! Credit where credits due.

But to argue there is some far reaching meta level strategy involved is stupid.

 

[zeusbheld]

it's a case of 'two birds with one stone'. dunno why you are on one about this!

I agree. Nice if it happens but not intended.


The reason I'm 'on one' about this ( apart from the fact that I'm always on one about something) is that too many people are praising Hughes and Cook for being great and visionary leaders when all they have done is drawn up a list of targets and gone after them. Great! Credit where credits due.

But to argue there is some far reaching meta level strategy involved is stupid.

you seem to have a notion that 'strategy' is something exotic and inherently brilliant.

if my strategy to get a job is to sit on the sofa, pick my nose, watch dvds and read blue moon, it may suck ass candy as strategies go but it's still a strategy.

also, some very good strategies are fairly straightforward. like signing the best players you can from your direct competition. ac milan did that in the late 80s early 90s. on purpose. it worked, at least i thought so and their silverware cabinet agrees.

there are a lot of reasons for going after the players we're going after, and they may tend to vary from player to player, but it's not randomly chasing after every good player. but they all do tend to fit into an overall pattern... almost as if... someone... planned it that way. (cue thunder and spooky music).

 

[bizzbo]

it's a case of 'two birds with one stone'. dunno why you are on one about this!

I agree. Nice if it happens but not intended.


The reason I'm 'on one' about this ( apart from the fact that I'm always on one about something) is that too many people are praising Hughes and Cook for being great and visionary leaders when all they have done is drawn up a list of targets and gone after them. Great! Credit where credits due.

But to argue there is some far reaching meta level strategy involved is stupid.

well, I guess I'm on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt... look at the barry transfer. I think it's a good bet from what we've seen that benitez' plan this summer was to get barry for 12m, sell alonso or mascher for 30, and plough the rest back into the squad. now he has a bit of a problem. whilst there is no concrete evidence of forethought here, it does seem that this would have at least crossed a few minds in our boardroom... the terry bid as well, also seems to have a purpose beyond recruiting a top centre back. it has brought the latent politicking at chelsea out in the open. who is really calling the shots there? terry? abramovich? kenyon? ancelotti? they have to sort it our now, as opposed to being able to get on with their work quietly, hoping everyone falls into line. add to that, the fact that the bid was delivered by cook at a (spurious) meeting that city called re: sturridge, and it seems to be designed to send a message to a club who have pinched one of our best young players, and sniffed around robinho.

really, who knows. but sometimes 'myths' can serve a very positive effect ;)

 

[Anonymous]

it's a case of 'two birds with one stone'. dunno why you are on one about this!

I agree. Nice if it happens but not intended.


The reason I'm 'on one' about this ( apart from the fact that I'm always on one about something) is that too many people are praising Hughes and Cook for being great and visionary leaders when all they have done is drawn up a list of targets and gone after them. Great! Credit where credits due.

But to argue there is some far reaching meta level strategy involved is stupid.

you seem to have a notion that 'strategy' is something exotic and inherently brilliant.

if my strategy to get a job is to sit on the sofa, pick my nose, watch dvds and read blue moon, it may suck ass candy as strategies go but it's still a strategy.

also, some very good strategies are fairly straightforward. like signing the best players you can from your direct competition. ac milan did that in the late 80s early 90s. on purpose. it worked, at least i thought so and their silverware cabinet agrees.

there are a lot of reasons for going after the players we're going after, and they may tend to vary from player to player, but it's not randomly chasing after every good player. but they all do tend to fit into an overall pattern... almost as if... someone... planned it that way. (cue thunder and spooky music).

United have done much the same under Ferguson.

 

[Giosballbag]

it's a case of 'two birds with one stone'. dunno why you are on one about this!

I agree. Nice if it happens but not intended.


The reason I'm 'on one' about this ( apart from the fact that I'm always on one about something) is that too many people are praising Hughes and Cook for being great and visionary leaders when all they have done is drawn up a list of targets and gone after them. Great! Credit where credits due.

But to argue there is some far reaching meta level strategy involved is stupid.

you seem to have a notion that 'strategy' is something exotic and inherently brilliant.

if my strategy to get a job is to sit on the sofa, pick my nose, watch dvds and read blue moon, it may suck ass candy as strategies go but it's still a strategy.

Sounds like a good strategy to me.

 

[mammutly]

it's a case of 'two birds with one stone'. dunno why you are on one about this!

I agree. Nice if it happens but not intended.


The reason I'm 'on one' about this ( apart from the fact that I'm always on one about something) is that too many people are praising Hughes and Cook for being great and visionary leaders when all they have done is drawn up a list of targets and gone after them. Great! Credit where credits due.

But to argue there is some far reaching meta level strategy involved is stupid.

you seem to have a notion that 'strategy' is something exotic and inherently brilliant.

if my strategy to get a job is to sit on the sofa, pick my nose, watch dvds and read blue moon, it may suck ass candy as strategies go but it's still a strategy.

also, some very good strategies are fairly straightforward. like signing the best players you can from your direct competition. ac milan did that in the late 80s early 90s. on purpose. it worked, at least i thought so and their silverware cabinet agrees.

there are a lot of reasons for going after the players we're going after, and they may tend to vary from player to player, but it's not randomly chasing after every good player. but they all do tend to fit into an overall pattern... almost as if... someone... planned it that way. (cue thunder and spooky music).

TBH was signed, why?

Our main target this year seems to have been Santa Cruz. Are Blackburn our rivals?

Thereason we go after players is to strengthen our squad. Anything else is a bonus.

 

[Anonymous]

TBH was signed, why?

Our main target this year seems to have been Santa Cruz. Are Blackburn our rivals?

Thereason we go after players is to strengthen our squad. Anything else is a bonus.

Not really a very good argument at all...

People are going to think you're just sniping for the sake of it...

 

[leewill31]

it's a case of 'two birds with one stone'. dunno why you are on one about this!

I agree. Nice if it happens but not intended.


The reason I'm 'on one' about this ( apart from the fact that I'm always on one about something) is that too many people are praising Hughes and Cook for being great and visionary leaders when all they have done is drawn up a list of targets and gone after them. Great! Credit where credits due.

But to argue there is some far reaching meta level strategy involved is stupid.

you seem to have a notion that 'strategy' is something exotic and inherently brilliant.

if my strategy to get a job is to sit on the sofa, pick my nose, watch dvds and read blue moon, it may suck ass candy as strategies go but it's still a strategy.

also, some very good strategies are fairly straightforward. like signing the best players you can from your direct competition. ac milan did that in the late 80s early 90s. on purpose. it worked, at least i thought so and their silverware cabinet agrees.

there are a lot of reasons for going after the players we're going after, and they may tend to vary from player to player, but it's not randomly chasing after every good player. but they all do tend to fit into an overall pattern... almost as if... someone... planned it that way. (cue thunder and spooky music).

TBH was signed, why?

Our main target this year seems to have been Santa Cruz. Are Blackburn our rivals?

Thereason we go after players is to strengthen our squad. Anything else is a bonus.

that gave me a chuckle,thanks mammutly!

 

[mammutly]

TBH was signed, why?

Our main target this year seems to have been Santa Cruz. Are Blackburn our rivals?

Thereason we go after players is to strengthen our squad. Anything else is a bonus.

Not really a very good argument at all...

People are going to think you're just sniping for the sake of it...

Sorry Billy. By 'this year' I meant 2009. We made a big effort to sign RSC in January and went back for him this window.

We have also targeted big name players - kaka, eto and probably enquired about a lot more.

When you look at the players we have signed, it is obvious that Mark Hughes is trying to build a solid premiership side.

The attempted and the actual signings considered together suggest only that the 'strategy' is to strengthen the squad. This is no different to any other club with money to spend.

My point is that we are simply not targeting players with a view to undermining our rivals. We are simply getting the best
( in the opinion of Hughes et al) that we can from the current market. Talk of a secondary sub strategy or whatever is bullshit.

 

[Neville Kneville]

TBH was signed, why?

Our main target this year seems to have been Santa Cruz. Are Blackburn our rivals?

Thereason we go after players is to strengthen our squad. Anything else is a bonus.

Not really a very good argument at all...

People are going to think you're just sniping for the sake of it...

Sorry Billy. By 'this year' I meant 2009. We made a big effort to sign RSC in January and went back for him this window.

We have also targeted big name players - kaka, eto and probably enquired about a lot more.

When you look at the players we have signed, it is obvious that Mark Hughes is trying to build a solid premiership side.

The attempted and the actual signings considered together suggest only that the 'strategy' is to strengthen the squad. This is no different to any other club with money to spend.

My point is that we are simply not targeting players with a view to undermining our rivals. We are simply getting the best
( in the opinion of Hughes et al) that we can from the current market. Talk of a secondary sub strategy or whatever is bullshit.

So every single player we sign has to be from one of our rivals in order for it to be true? Daft argument.

If there's a choice between a top player with PL experience, an equal player from abroad with similar experience or a top player with PL experience that suits us down to the ground & also fucks over our rivals, we'll go for him. Naieve to think it doesn't come into the equation. It was said that Abramovic would do that before he even started with Chelsk & our people have openly said they're following Chelsea's strategy.

Chelsea do it, rags do it & now we're doing it. Sorry if that means Hughes & Cook are doing something right but they're getting a lot of things right these days.

 

[mammutly]

The thing that I find really worrying is that people actually believe that there are a pool of players scattered around different clubs who are equally suitable for a particular role in our squad on all levels, and that all we have to do is pick the one that will piss our rivals off the most. Unbelieveable!