The transfer strategy

[Kirkstall Blue]

"

 

[Neville Kneville]

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!

I think you'll find that the No of people suggesting that is roughly '0' & I think you know that but if it's the only way to get your argument across then fair enough.

Unless you genuinely believe there are only 11 players in the world suitable for City; one for each spot! Now THAT would be unbelievable!

 

[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!

I think you'll find that the No of people suggesting that is roughly '0' & I think you know that but if it's the only way to get your argument across then fair enough.

Unless you genuinely believe there are only 11 players in the world suitable for City; one for each spot! Now THAT would be unbelievable!

Sorry. I thought that's what you were suggesting.

Or are you agreeing with me that the club always choose the best player they can get for the job, no matter where he comes from?

 

[bizzbo]

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!

I think you'll find that the No of people suggesting that is roughly '0' & I think you know that but if it's the only way to get your argument across then fair enough.

Unless you genuinely believe there are only 11 players in the world suitable for City; one for each spot! Now THAT would be unbelievable!

Sorry. I thought that's what you were suggesting.

Or are you agreeing with me that the club always choose the best player they can get for the job, no matter where he comes from?

you've left yourself wide open here. the fact that the merits of the target are the primary consideration does not affect the implementation of a strategy governing the acquisition of the targeted players (for one thing, you have excluded the possibility that there may well be more than one player of equal merit in the targeted position). strategy is the art of using one's resources to maximum effect in pursuit of a goal. in this case, the order in which targets are pursued, the timing and pitch of each bid, the management of any publicity regarding the pursuit of each target, could be manipulated in line with a strategy to confound your opponents plans, destabilize and weaken their resolve and unity, and to ensure maximum chance of a bid being accepted and of the player agreeing to sign.

any attempt to argue against this being an obvious possibility will be taken as evidence that confirms my suspicion that you are being a mard-arse on this issue and beyond caring about the reasonableness of the arguments.

 

[Neville Kneville]

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!

I think you'll find that the No of people suggesting that is roughly '0' & I think you know that but if it's the only way to get your argument across then fair enough.

Unless you genuinely believe there are only 11 players in the world suitable for City; one for each spot! Now THAT would be unbelievable!

Sorry. I thought that's what you were suggesting.

Or are you agreeing with me that the club always choose the best player they can get for the job, no matter where he comes from?

I'm suggesting that they choose a selection of possible players for each position & quite often those will be the same players owned by or coveted by the top clubs. If there's a choice between signing a player of roughly the same ability but one of them will weaken a rival, they'll choose the one that weakens the rival. If they don't they're far too nice to be in charge of a modern football club.

Do you honestly think Jon Obi Mikel was so unique that he was the only player Chelsea could get in that position; they had to go through all that shit ? That it was a coincedence that Peter Kenyon moved there & they immediately moved for all Utd's top transfer targets, almost kidnapping Robben from OT? Look into Abramovic's strategy in Russia, he was known for it. It happens;we're doing it. Whether we'd admit it is another story.

 

[HelloCity]

You worry me, mammutly.

 

[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!

I think you'll find that the No of people suggesting that is roughly '0' & I think you know that but if it's the only way to get your argument across then fair enough.

Unless you genuinely believe there are only 11 players in the world suitable for City; one for each spot! Now THAT would be unbelievable!

Sorry. I thought that's what you were suggesting.

Or are you agreeing with me that the club always choose the best player they can get for the job, no matter where he comes from?

I'm suggesting that they choose a selection of possible players for each position & quite often those will be the same players owned by or coveted by the top clubs. If there's a choice between signing a player of roughly the same ability but one of them will weaken a rival, they'll choose the one that weakens the rival. If they don't they're far too nice to be in charge of a modern football club.

Do you honestly think Jon Obi Mikel was so unique that he was the only player Chelsea could get in that position; they had to go through all that shit ? That it was a coincedence that Peter Kenyon moved there & they immediately moved for all Utd's top transfer targets, almost kidnapping Robben from OT? Look into Abramovic's strategy in Russia, he was known for it. It happens;we're doing it. Whether we'd admit it is another story.

I mostly agree with your first paragraph. But I would doubt that at the highest level there are often two or more players of 'roughly the same ability'

The rest of your post is unfounded speculation.

To return to the original question of 'strategy'. This club does not select targets on the basis of whether they might be coveted by other clubs. There is just no evidence whatsoever to suggest any different. Abramovich having been accused of using such methods back in Russia in the 1990's is just irrelevant.

 

[mammutly]

You worry me, mammutly.

As long as I don't bore you


;-)

 

[bizzbo]

as he's gone to bed, i will continue the argument in his absence. M, you have a couple of points. one, it would be foolish to choose an obviously less suitable target on the basis that it would upset an opponent, and two, that people are underestimating the possibilty that it is nothing more than coincidence that the best targets are playing for our direct rivals (even if you seem to be guilty of underestimating the possibility that it is more than coincidence).

 

[mammutly]

as he's gone to bed, i will continue the argument in his absence. M, you have a couple of points. one, it would be foolish to choose an obviously less suitable target on the basis that it would upset an opponent, and two, that people are underestimating the possibilty that it is nothing more than coincidence that the best targets are playing for our direct rivals (even if you seem to be guilty of underestimating the possibility that it is more than coincidence).

And there was I thinking you were a nutter


;-)

 

[Neville Kneville]

I mostly agree with your first paragraph. But I would doubt that at the highest level there are often two or more players of 'roughly the same ability'

The rest of your post is unfounded speculation.

To return to the original question of 'strategy'. This club does not select targets on the basis of whether they might be coveted by other clubs. There is just no evidence whatsoever to suggest any different. Abramovich having been accused of using such methods back in Russia in the 1990's is just irrelevant.

I said:
'they choose a selection of possible players for each position & quite often those will be the same players owned by or coveted by the top clubs'

Can you see how that isn't the same thing as:
This club does not 'select targets on the basis of whether they might be coveted by other clubs.'

If not let me explain; most top players are either at, or coveted by top clubs hence they compete with each other for said players. If we had the choice of signing for example a 20 a season goalscorer from West Brom or taking one who plays in a similar way off Utd, we would take one off Utd. Whatsmore it will keep happening from now on & you will keep thinking it's a coincedence.

As for your assertion that Abramovic's methods in Russia which coincedentally happen to be exactly the same methods he uses with Chelsea as being irrelevant, that has to be one of the worst examples of dodging facts that I've ever read! Sticking your cyber head in the sand as you don't have a reply for it that fits your argument ! That's a bit like saying if we brought in Dave Bassett as a manager, the fact that he always likes his teams to lump the ball 50 yards in the air would be irrelevant!

Anyhow if you're going to ignore such facts then I can't really make any relevant points to prove my opinion so I'll call it a night & we'll agree to differ, no hard feelings etc ;-)

 

[mammutly]

Right. So we're agreed then. It's just a list of names of players we want.

Beyond that, any strategic advantage is a bonus.

Glad we've got that sorted


;-)

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

my word. An mcfc forum with obvious infiltrators having there own debate.
Do us all a favour boys eh!

Are you an infiltrator???? do us a favour and explain?????

 

[toffee balls]

Look at date joined.I am a sleeper cell been lying dormant for 5 years!

I had been sipping the Amber Necter on Saturday and took exception to some negativity.

Still think a couple of wums posting early in the thread tho

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

Yes I looked at your join date and was going to post last night, thought better of it and posted this morning, was intrigued as you only had 4 posts since 2004
Yes your right, lots of WUMS on at the moment, I'm not very good at spotting them I think I found my first one the other day who had been posting for ages but its the irony in their posts now you've said, I can spot infiltration in this debate.
Thanks for explaining.

 

[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.

Sounds like a good strategy to me.

i am expecting it will pay big dividends any day now...

 

[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).

TBH was signed, why?

someone was taking the piss.

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

i'd rate Barry as a bigger signing than RSC and we are hoping to pass VIlla.

The reason we go after players is to strengthen our squad.

the strategy part is how do we strengthen our squad. even if you say "by going after the best players" that's a strategy is it not? if not explain how pls.

Anything else is a bonus.

any strategy simple or complicated involves prioritizing one's goals. it's obviously more important to strengthen our squad than anything, but other things come into play, especially when targeting Terry for example (commercial considerations, giving Chelsea a mess to sort out).

 

[toffee balls]

Yes I looked at your join date and was going to post last night, thought better of it and posted this morning, was intrigued as you only had 4 posts since 2004
Yes your right, lots of WUMS on at the moment, I'm not very good at spotting them I think I found my first one the other day who had been posting for ages but its the irony in their posts now you've said, I can spot infiltration in this debate.
Thanks for explaining.

No probs.

my post count is really in the low 100s
My user name caused me to have a bit of a bashing from Ric (when he used to post!) for being
an Evertonian in disguise.

On this rear day of posting can anybody remember the circumstances which led to Rascals disapearance from Bluemoon?

apologies for posting in the Transfer forum

 

[mammutly]

Yes I looked at your join date and was going to post last night, thought better of it and posted this morning, was intrigued as you only had 4 posts since 2004
Yes your right, lots of WUMS on at the moment, I'm not very good at spotting them I think I found my first one the other day who had been posting for ages but its the irony in their posts now you've said, I can spot infiltration in this debate.
Thanks for explaining.

No probs.

my post count is really in the low 100s
My user name caused me to have a bit of a bashing from Ric (when he used to post!) for being
an Evertonian in disguise.

On this rear day of posting can anybody remember the circumstances which led to Rascals disapearance from Bluemoon?
apologies for posting in the Transfer forum

It was related to too much vile abuse from the happy clappers because of his noble stance against Thaksin.

He does still visit occasionally though.